Ok, I tend think it makes more sense to swing back and later and consider endorsing a shared letter that has government support, but if you want to keep collecting sigs for a letter that the governments say will not fly, go for it.

Cheers

Bill

On Sep 6, 2014, at 11:20 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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
>> 
>>