<div dir="ltr">Dear Parminder,<div><br></div><div>I can agree with several of the points you make and your description of the sequence of events is quite accurate. Some comments however and a question/proposal in the end that is the most important in my view.</div><div><br></div><div><b>Comments</b></div><div><br></div><div>I personally would not have been opposed to a full-fledged WSIS review (including potentially a summit level), provided however that it would have implemented additional improvement to the participation scheme achieved ten years ago. </div><div><br></div><div>Actually, the preparatory meetings organized by Unesco in 2013 and ITU in 2014 were interesting experiments in terms of more participatory processes and drafting. But it did not seem to have impacted the minds of the New York representatives. </div><div><br></div><div>As you rightly point out, in the discussions last year at the UNGA, the positions among governments were roughly:</div><div>- on the one hand those who put the emphasis on multi-stakeholder participation and traditionally did not want a heads of state type of event nor a long preparatory process (for both good and bad reasons), who also favored a meeting in Geneva</div><div>- on the other hand, as you said, "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, [and] wanted it to be summit level meeting"</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I have not seen the position of the G77 that you mention and confess I did not follow this very closely. But as could be expected in pure intergovernmental discussions (as is the case in the UNGA) in the absence of a strong desire by all to reach an agreement, this divergence of views was only overcome with the sort of half-baked solution that we are now seeing (bits and pieces of each position). </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I do agree that it deprives everyone of an opportunity to have a serious review and that was the initial gist of my post to Michael: I do not expect much from a mere resolution adopted in a two-day meeting in New York with little if any involvement of non-governmental actors in the preparation. At best it will reconduct the IGF with little if any improvements.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Having participated for four years in the CSTD exercise every year, I can testify that none of the resolutions that we so painstakingly drafted in late night sessions contained anything more than copy and paste of the favorite sections of the various WSIS documents. I did not expect the intergovernmental discussions in New York about the WSIS+10 to produce anything significant - and I unfortunately was right. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">But isn't it unfair to put the blame on civil society (or part of it) for this outcome, as you seem to imply? After all, it did not have a say in the process. I suppose in addition that it was itself split on the right thing to do, which would have made it hard to launch a structured and strong campaign. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">It is a bit the same as the debate on who has weakened the IGF? Is it the western countries that strongly refused to move towards recommendations (in part true - although they provided 100% of its funding)? Is it the more radical developing countries governments who somehow progressively stopped coming as a way to reduce its legitimacy (also true). Or is it the throttling by UN DESA which made it hard to receive funds, did not replace the Chair and maintained just a skeleton of a secretariat that prevented anything more than the organization of the annual even to be done (very much so). </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">In the case of the WSIS+10, the governments in the UNGA - not civil society - are the ones to blame for being unable to agree on anything coherent regarding the mere format to discuss these very important issues. And this does not bode well for any likelihood of progress on substance, hence the legitimate caution by many regarding the role that the UN can play in that regard. An unfortunate self-reinforcing feedback loop. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">We'll see what happens. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><b>Question/proposal</b></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><b>To end on a positive and more forward-looking note, what would be YOUR hopes for the WSIS+10 Review meeting and resolution? What do you think it can achieve? What could be civil society contribution to the shaping of the agenda and document? Suggestions welcome, as it might be a useful thread on this list - provided we focus on what unites rather than what divides.</b> </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Bertrand</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><b>PS</b>: As a matter of clarification, I do not sit on the ICANN Board since the end of 2013 (the Buenos Aires meeting) and therefore have no association with the positions that it has taken since then on the issues at stake here. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><table width="600" border="0" cellspacing="3" cellpadding="0" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:13px;line-height:1em;color:rgb(38,38,38)"><tbody><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></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"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><span style="color:rgb(0,138,204);text-transform:uppercase">BERTRAND DE LA CHAPELLE</span></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">Internet & Jurisdiction Project | Director</td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">email <a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@internetjurisdiction.net" alt="email Bertrand de la Chapelle" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@internetjurisdiction.net</a></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3">email <a href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com" alt="email Bertrand de la Chapelle" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a></td></tr><tr colspan="3"><td>twitter <a href="https://twitter.com/IJurisdiction" alt="Internet & Jurisdiction Twitter Accompt" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">@IJurisdiction</a> | <a href="https://twitter.com/bdelachapelle" alt="Paul Fehlinger Twitter" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">@bdelachapelle</a></td></tr><tr colspan="3"><td>mobile <span style="color:rgb(159,157,159)">+33 (0)6 11 88 33 32</span></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><a href="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net" alt="Internet & Jurisdiction Website" style="color:rgb(159,157,159);text-decoration:none" target="_blank">www.internetjurisdiction.net</a></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3"><img src="http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/InternetJurisdiction-Logo-w300px.png" alt="A GLOBAL MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUE PROCESS" width="300" style="margin: 0px; border: none;"></td></tr><tr><td colspan="3" height="5"></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 2:50 PM, parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><span class="">
<br>
<br>
<div>On Tuesday 19 May 2015 11:57 PM,
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote 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 href="https://www.apc.org/en/news/everything-you-need-know-about-wsis10-review" target="_blank">excellent
summary by APC</a>: </font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 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>
</span><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><span class="">
<br>
"<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 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>
</span><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 href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/?page=2" target="_blank">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
!?<span class=""><br>
<br>
<blockquote 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>
</span><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><span class=""><font color="#888888">
<br>
parminder <br>
</font></span><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<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>
<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 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><font color="#888888"><br>
M<br>
</font></span><span><br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance-request@lists.igcaucus.org</a>]
On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,<br>
Wolfgang"<br>
Sent: May 19, 2015 3:01 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
parminder; David Cake<br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>;
BestBitsList; Forum@Justnetcoalition. Org<br>
</span>
<div>
<div>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></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.igcaucus.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.igcaucus.org</a>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<a href="http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance</a>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>