[governance] Speaking up

[Danny Butt]

It may be too late, but I also agree with all on the importance of  
speaking out strongly on this. Even though I think the interests of  
civil society are opposed to those of the private sector and  
academic  technical community in many areas of detail, there was a  
clear recommendation from WGIG that IG arrangements should be  
multistakeholder, and to me this is the most important principle to  
hold on to and take forward to Tunis. Prepcom should be held to account.

Regards,

Danny (currently in Australia)


On 28/09/2005, at 8:05 PM, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote:

> I agree with Vittorio 100%.
>
> And this is a time to work with the private sector and technical
> community, we have a stronger voice together in this and our interests
> are the same.
>
> Adam (from England... missing Geneva already :-)
>
>
>
> On 9/28/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
>
>> I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest  
>> statement
>> against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from  
>> drafting
>> groups.
>>
>> I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some  
>> governments,
>> with the business people, and with some of us. The business people  
>> are
>> meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems  
>> likely they
>> will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and  
>> non-EU
>> from the developed world) have told us that they would support us,  
>> but
>> that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from
>> non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level
>> today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and  
>> so would
>> need that statement before then.
>>
>> If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train.  
>> Yesterday civil
>> society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting
>> groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the  
>> next round
>> of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the  
>> same rules
>> of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and  
>> PS speak
>> in the first five minutes and then leave.
>>
>> We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We  
>> need to
>> get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in  
>> public, so
>> that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to  
>> confront
>> them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality)  
>> of the
>> Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism  
>> due to
>> this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the  
>> press, which
>> would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what
>> regards IG.
>>
>> These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this  
>> point of
>> view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case,  
>> if we
>> can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time,  
>> I would
>> do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get.
>> --
>> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] 
>> <------
>> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Email from Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
> Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling.  Please
> reply to  <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


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