Hi,

I talked to Chris Painter and other government types last night.  While
all are agreed that having a letter signed by the world would be best,
having multiple letters singed by bunches of people & organizations is
still a good thing.

Incidentally he agreed that using the word 'ongoing' would have been
better than 'open ended', but as you said other governments had other
wording issues.  Incidentally no one objected to the ends the letter was
positing.

I tend to see this as still worth having and collecting signatures on
and submitting/publishing at some point.  It is, if nothing else, a clue
to what the rest of us want, and it seems to me that it can be joined
with other letters with other similar words to tell the UN a few things:

- renewal - any letter will probably agree on that
- for a period longer than 5 years

Of course if other group some up comes up with a variant that everyone
can sign, we can sign that too.  But I recommend _not_ scrapping this
letter.  If nothing else it keep pressure on for the creation of a
universal letter - if such a thing is possible.


avri


On 06-Sep-14 10:09, William Drake wrote:
> Hello
> 
> Stephanie Perrin and Jeanette Hofmann of NCUC/SG were the drafters
> and driving forces here so they can correct/amend/amplify the
> following: This is no longer happening so at this point people need
> not keep endorsing it.  It turned out that when the USG people
> floated it internally first they got positive responses but then the
> legal types who work on UNGA submissions came back with issues with
> the wording, particularly the call for an “open ended” mandate (has a
> specific and potentially problematic meaning in the UN), and then the
> Brazilians and a few other friends governmentals came back with other
> language changes.  This could not be sorted out in time, so Chris
> Painter, the US Department of State Coordinator for Cyber Issues,
> simply said in his speech at the closing that we acknowledge and
> applaud that stakeholders are working on a proposal regarding
> renewal, or some such thing (check the transcript).
> 
> It would have been very nice to have ended the IGF with a ringing
> call for a permanent mandate, which would have helped in the UNGA
> negotiations next year over whether to review for the standard five
> years, but taking the initiative from start to finish in a couple
> days amidst the frenzy of an IGF meeting might have been
> over-optimistic if civil society wanted governments to support it.
> So now the ball has started rolling and if friendly governments want
> to keep it that way they will need to do intergovernmental
> consultations and see what they can work out in order to get more
> governments to support, and CS will need to coordinate with them.  If
> a new letter emerges from that process, it’ll be different from what
> we’ve been endorsing, so we might want to do a fresh round at that
> point.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 5, 2014, at 5:11 PM, DeeDee Halleck <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
>> +1 DeeDee Halleck, Deep Dish Network
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Stephanie Perrin
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the Internet Governance
>> Forum: This is further to our message of September 4th, portions of
>> which follow:
>> 
>> At the 9th meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, various
>> stakeholders discussed their common desire to request an immediate
>> extension of the IGF mandate, in order to create stabiity for the
>> organization and predictability for those engaged in seeking
>> funding for projects. We have drafted a statement to send to the
>> UN, to request not just an immediate renewal of the IGF mandate,
>> but rather an open-ended re-authorization of the IGF as a
>> voluntary, multistakeholder forum. We request that other
>> participants in the IGF also support this message on or before
>> November 1. ....... UPDATE We have created a neutral website for
>> this project at www.igfcontinuation.org, to accept sign-ons of
>> organizations, countries, and individuals. Please note that this is
>> a different URL from the one circulated yesterday. The undersigned
>> will continue to collect your signatures and description of your
>> organization if you have trouble signing on.
>> 
>> As of 15:30 UTC+2, September 5 we have been open for signatures
>> less than 24 hours, and we have 18 organizations, and 35
>> individuals.
>> 
>> Examples of how you will be listed appear below, so please provide
>> this information to us if you wish us to sign on for you. 1. Jane
>> Smith Individual 2. Acme Industry Association Association
>> representing 150 manufacturers of widgets 3. [Country x] Government
>> Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions. 
>> Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science Center, [log in to unmask] 
>> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,
>> [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
> 
>