<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM,
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Michael,</font>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">I am not sure I
see what you mean below by "working to undermine and
diminish the significance of the WSIS+10"? </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">What surely could
undermine the WSIS+10 process is that it will most likely be
less open to non-state actors - and civil society in
particular - than the WSIS itself 10 years ago. Unless
things have changed, and according to the <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review">excellent
summary by APC</a>: </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><i><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">the
review is going to be</span><font face="arial,
helvetica, sans-serif"> "a <span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);line-height:18.5919990539551px">two-day
high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The
document will be prepared by "</span></font><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.2799997329712px;line-height:18.5919990539551px">an
intergovernmental negotiation process, which will
include preparatory meetings, resulting in an
intergovernmentally agreed outcome document, for
adoption at the high-level meeting of the General
Assembly".</span></i></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<i>Bertrand<br>
<br>
What Michael says above relates to how we reached the state of
affair described in the cited section</i> from APC's summary.<br>
<br>
I am sure you know how we reached the situation whereby <br>
<br>
"<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px">
<div><i><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">the
review is going to be</span><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif"> "a <span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);line-height:18.5919990539551px">two-day
high-level meeting of the General Assembly". The document
will be prepared by "</span></font><span
style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13.2799997329712px;line-height:18.5919990539551px">an
intergovernmental negotiation process, which will include
preparatory meetings, resulting in an intergovernmentally
agreed outcome document, for adoption at the high-level
meeting of the General Assembly". "<br>
<br>
</span></i></div>
</blockquote>
<i>Over many months last year, and the year before, G 77 sought a
full fledged WSIS plus 10 summit on the same style as the original
WSIS, the extended preparatory meetings and all.... Developed
countries, under the customary US leadership, simply refused. Some
m</i>ajor NGOs that otherwise follow this process closely were
either silent or actually supporting the developed country position
in this stand off, and to that extent opposing the position of a
full fledged WSIS summit, original WSIS style (which would have then
taken place in Geneva, with multistakeholder participation at least
at the same level as was in the original WSIS). When this was
happening, I raised the issue a few times on these list but got no
response. It is really strange in the circumstances to now rue that
this has happened. <br>
<br>
It is a fact that the more authoritarian countries among the G 77
also preferred it to move to New York, with much less multi
stakeholder participation than what would have happened in Geneva,
even though they wanted it to be summit level meeting. <i><b>However,
G 77 as a group was ready to do it fully original WSIS style</b></i>,
with the leadership for this position taken by the more democratic
developing countries. However, this position found no support from
civil society and tech groups (ISOC) who otherwise were closely
following the process, and there were in fact positions articulated
that expressed some kinds of 'fear' about a possible full-fledged
summit, with these positions largely aligning with developed country
positions. <br>
<br>
That is what brought us were we are. Lets not escape the
responsibility. <br>
<br>
Further, as I said in my earlier email, the CEO of ICANN - an
organisation on whose board both you and Wolfgang sit - openly
touted Net Mundial Initiative as something needed to stop
governments from doing what they would in default (of NMI) do
through the WSIS and its preparatory process. With this kind of
sentiment, publicly expressed, it is clear what ICANN and others of
the dominant IG cohort think of the WSIS process....<br>
<br>
Quoting Fadi on why Net Mundial is needed -
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2</a><br>
<br>
"We need to make sure that next June (referring to the start of WSIS
prep process) we don't have delegation after delegation going to
UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] saying there are no
solutions to these issues.<br>
<br>
And then now to express regret about the health of the WSIS process
!?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">For sure,
modalities for consultation of relevant WSIS stakeholders
are supposed to be put in place, but there is a big question
mark in that regard at the moment, isn't it?</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">In that context,
maybe the motto should be: the real WSIS+10 is the IGF 2015.
Why don't we make it so? <br>
</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Yes, that kind of
sentiment is and was precisely the problem which led to where we
stand today. </font>But then lets not try to have our cake and
eat it too ... <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGF_KH86tkv4JBuqdQNN0Vf_fzpK+9Ahp=6tMO3pwT9naoW+gQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Best</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Bertrand</font></div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<table
style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:1em;color:rgb(38,38,38)"
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="3" width="600">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="5"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(176,173,176)">
<td colspan="3">"<em>Le plus beau métier des
hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes</em>", Antoine
de Saint Exupéry<br>
("<em>There is no greater mission for humans
than uniting humans</em>")</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="10"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" height="5"><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 5:48 PM,
Michael Gurstein <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com"
target="_blank">gurstein@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Wolfgang,
I must say that I find your statement below exceedingly
odd in<br>
that you seem to have ignored the manner in which a number
of the leading<br>
"civil society" organizations have been working alongside
their USG and UKG<br>
(and other) allies to undermine and diminish the
significance of the WSIS<br>
+10 process.<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
M<br>
</font></span><span class="im"><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,<br>
Wolfgang"<br>
Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM<br>
To: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
parminder; David Cake<br>
Cc: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
BestBitsList; Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org<br>
</span>
<div class="">
<div class="h5">Subject: [governance] Why?<br>
<br>
Sorry for intervening: It is really a pitty that the
discussion on this list<br>
is occupied by hairsplitting, "I told you but you do
not listen" and "I am<br>
right and you are wrong". Why this civil society
network, which once played<br>
an important role in policy development in the WSIS
process, is unable to<br>
look forward where the real challenges are with the
forthcoming WSIS 10+<br>
processes and concentrate on substance and how to
reach rough consensus? Why<br>
people do not respect anymore what Jon Postel has told
us a quarter of a<br>
century ago in his robustness princple: "Be
conservative in what you send,<br>
be liberal in what you accept". Why they do not
remember the language of the<br>
CS WSIS Geneva Declaration from 2003?<br>
<br>
The Bali split (2013) has obviously long shadows and
old warriors have<br>
overtaken the discussion.<br>
<br>
My hope is that the WSIS 10++ perspective will
encourage a new generation of<br>
younger civil society people who feel more committed
to the substance of<br>
real civil society activities and do not waste the
limited resources and<br>
energies for infighting. And do not forget: The WGIG
proposal for a<br>
multistakeholder approach in Internet Governance
(2005) was a compromise<br>
between "governmental leadership" (China) and private
sector leadership<br>
(USA)and it opened the door for civil society to
become an inclusive part of<br>
the process. This was a boig achievement of that time
and an opportunity. It<br>
is now up to the next generation of civil society
activists to build on this<br>
oppportunity. It would be a big shame if this would be
destroyed.<br>
<br>
Wolfgang<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>