[governance] draft statement

[Avri Doria]

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/20050929/553812b1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance