[governance] draft statement

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Not sure which amendments you are adopting in these bracketts but speaking
personally not on behalf of my NGO, I like the emphasis on the need to adopt
multistakeholder and also not to predefine or limit the role of the
stakeholders involved. I am not in Geneva, but it sounds like the Canadians
are coming up with somethingmore workable and acceptable. I like the support
for this. Overall the spirit of this note is in the right direction of
inclusiveness and review also ensure some accountability and mapping
progress. The statement is also not too prejudicial or harsh. As an NGO, we
have no specific stand on any solution adopted save it be done in the right
spirit of cooperation, shared responsibility and the "trusteeship"i.e for
the good of all.
 
Thanks,
Laina

  _____  

From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 4:59 PM
To: Izumi AIZU
Cc: Governance Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann
Subject: [governance] draft statement


hi, 




a quick pass  with adds, deletes and replace]




Statement on new proposals
Sep 29
 
Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

 
 
Good evening everyone.
 
My name is Izumi Aizu[Delete:, succeeding the co-coordinator's role of the]
[add: of Glocom speaking on behalf of the] Civil Society Internet Governance
Caucus [delete: from my colleague Adam Peake at GLOCOM].
 
[delete: First we would like to thank all the efforts the delegations are
now putting to conclude this two week long session of PrepCom 3. We hope we
can go back home with the tangible product of mutual cooperation and
collaboration tomorrow.
 
[delete: Now, we again would like to express our great concern, however,
about the working modality of the Drafting Group sessions which essentially
deny us from meaningful participation. We like to remind you that all of the
non-governmental stakeholders, the private sector, international
organizations and us, the citizens, or the civil society are your essential
partners, that was agreed under the Geneva WSIS principles. Therefore we
strongly urge you to reconsider this negative situation and start implement
far more constructive and productive working method for any of the remaining
work as well as all the work of the Tunis summit, follow up and future works
ahead.
 
[delete: On the progress being made at the Subcomitee A on Internet
Governance, we would like to share the following observations.
 
First, we welcome [add: the fact] that Subcom A [add: has] finally started
to discuss the core issues [delete:in its full slot at this very end of the
session.]
 
Civil society welcomes the proposal made this morning by the delegation of
Canada. We think it embodies the Geneva Principle of multi-stakeholdership
[replace; with/including the] full and equal participation principle, and
greater emphasis on inclusion from developing parts of the world. We also
welcome the explicit recognition of the WGIG process, the open consultation
process. 
 
With this encouraging proposal from Canada, Civil Society would like to
[replace: retaliate/reiterate] our position on participation [delete: once
again] : We seek for full and equal participation of all stakeholders as a
matter of principle and a matter of practice. 
 
On the proposal made by the European Union, we have carefully read and
analyzed it and [replace: came/ have come] to the following conclusion.
First, we like to thank EU for having informal consultation with Civil
Society this afternoon. We had very constructive meeting and made a
meaningful dialogue. As we said during the meeting, we have some concerns
and reservations in the following areas.
 
While we also [replace: share/believe] that some adjustments or improvement
is necessary in the area of Internet Governance, including that of the
current ICANN framework, [add: but] we do not agree that governments alone
[replace:  will/should] be given any special role over other stakeholders
[replace: which/as ] is expressed in this new EU proposal. We do not agree
with the language in para 63. which says "with the special emphasis on the
complementarity between all the actors involved . including governments, the
private sector, civil society and international organizations each of them
in its field of competence;", we have problem with "each of them in its
field of competence " which would confine our ability for full engagement,
[add: especially since the agreed language in para 42c attempts to limit
civil society to community  activity]
 
We also do not support "Para 64. Essential tasks" as a whole. We do not
think that the areas described from a) to e) in specifics should rest under
the sole involvement of international government involvement, which is
clearly against the multi-stakeholder principle WSIS has agreed with.
 
We also do not agree [add: with] the limited [repalce: nature/duration] of
[add: the] Forum [add: .][delte: , with predefined period.] We see the need
for the periodic review as is described in Canada proposal, but [add: are]
not in full support of the default sun-set provision EU proposes. With the
same concern, we have doubt[s] about the 2 phase approach [replace:  to
create / or creating]Forum first, finish that, and then start[ing] the
transition. 
 
We hope that EU together with other colleagues here in Geneva will find ways
to improve these areas and come together for mutually agreeable solution.
Again we need true multi-stakeholder practice [repalce: in/with] full and
equal [replace: footing/particpation].
 
Thank you very much.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050929/c4a5b35e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance