[governance] Statement made in Plenary

[karen banks]

hi

the statement drafted for subcom A, was closely followed by a general 
sttement in plenary, based on the press conference statement, adapted 
somewhat on the fly..

read by emmanuel njenga - it was a shame in some ways the two statements 
had to be read so closely together, but both were good and left no doubt, i 
think, that we are very unhappy with how things have been left in terms of 
our access to the process now.. a small round of applause i believe after 
njenga spoke..

Amb Karklin's response to the questions about process (bertrand also 
finished his statement on a similar note) were very discouraging.. he made 
it clear that the intersessional process would be intergovernmental, and 
that other stakeholders would be 'kept informed of progress' - i guess 
we'll get to go to resumed prepcom nov 13/14/15 - but we shuld make plans 
fro what to do between now and then

he was also extremely tired.. some bilaterals might now be in order.. i 
think we should try to arrange another consultation with the EU as we did 
prior to the WGIG report, and other governments if possible..

would be good to talk about our strategy once the dust's setttled, next week

karen
-----

Emmanuel Njenga Njuguna, Association for Progressive Communications, for 
the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

Statement to Plenary, WSIS PrepCom III, September 20th 2005

After 2 weeks of PrepCom the governments have still not reached agreement 
on Internet governance.

The Geneva principles create the opportunity for this impasse to be 
resolved constructively and creatively by including the perspectives and 
expertise of all stakeholders. We believe this would have been more 
effective than the ongoing deadlock that emerged from counter positioning 
among governments.

This is the only way to arrive at a legitimate and sustainable outcome as 
it includes the participation of the people and institutions involved in 
the evolution, use and management of the Internet.

Most governments now support the creation of an Internet Governance Forum, 
which we value as a positive outcome of the work of Sub Committee A during 
PrepCom III.

---- cut on the fly, a bit of adlibbing, as the statement was not intended 
to be read out so soon after avris

We think that the Forum will only work if it's formation is based on the 
Geneva principles, addresses cross cutting issues and provides a space that 
addresses the multidimensional aspects of development in relation to 
Internet governance and public policy issues.  We believe that there are 
many creative solutions to the establishment of a Forum and hope that the 
governments will give our suggestions full consideration.

----->

We would like to add that the Prepcom would have made much more progress if 
governments had begun their negotiations explicitly based on the work done 
by the WGIG, a body that was exemplary in that it afforded all sectors full 
participation as peers.

Civil society made a statement on Wednesday 28 September 2005 protesting 
the exclusion of non-governmental organizations from the working 
groups.  Our protest questioned the legitimacy of a process that excluded 
the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. Meaningful participation 
involves the ability to take part in all discussions.

While conditions for participation did not change in a material way after 
the reading of the statement, the chairs of the subcommittees did try to 
accommodate non-governmental participants as best they could.  We 
appreciate their efforts, and regret, due to circumstances beyond their 
control, that they were not able to sustain them throughout the PrepCom.

We are concerned about the process from here to Tunis.

Will all stakeholders be included?

If they are not, the legitimacy of this uniquely inclusive process will be 
at risk.



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance