[governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues

Wolfgang Kleinw├Ąchter wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de
Thu Dec 1 10:29:28 EST 2005

Sorry for being late.
I have not much to add to the disussion. Thanks to everybody who has made the text clear and forward looking.
With regard to the proposed WG, I would let it open to everybody. And do not be afraid that other will create other WGs. Our strengths is not that we create the one and only WG, but we havwe to come with strong and substantial proposals and arguments. If we compete with other proposals, this is fine. This challenfges us to have the better proposals. 
With regard to the mandate, it should include both "modalities" and "substance". And if we come to substance, we should take into consideration, that there has to be also a linkage between the two processes which will be started by UN Secretary General. The Forum probably will remain a "talking shop" but the process towards "enhanced cooperation" will deal with the 'hard issues". And the WG should look into both processes.
One issue which has not been mentioned is the ccTLD Para. This is one of the clearest and strongest para where everybody agreed, in particular China.  We should be aware, that thie formulation of the para as it stands now in the Tunis document, could be also misused by some governments to intriduce a very draconical "national system" . We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-dsicrimnation, equal access etc. 
Best regards


From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann
Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 1:17 PM
To: Vittorio Bertola
Cc: Governance; wdrake at ictsd.ch
Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues

Hi Vittorio,

> I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the
> only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to
> discuss about the forum.

How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to
begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups
form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for
civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I
don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve.


In fact, I expect that there might be a number
> of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities
> without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as
> well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which
> however I would neither know how nor like to do).
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org

governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org

More information about the Governance mailing list