I have just posted a somewhat different approach, but I think we are
thinking along the same lines. I am willing to keep working on it, but
open to suggestion. There are many ways to nuance this, let us set up a
small team to figure out plan A, plan B, plan C. But lets do what
government and business do....dont agree to anything until we take it
back and caucus.
Stephanie
RE sending it on to other lists....I dont want to hear from the trolls
about us not having our act together, and I was discussing NCSG
strategy. Please do not forward my post to the other lists. Bear in
mind that many governments are on the other lists. I dont think they are
on this one as much.
On 2014-09-06, 5:57, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi Bill, not quite :-)
>
> It wasn't the USG that brought the statement/letter down. My
> understanding is that it wasn't any single group or actor. I
> experienced some sort of a tipping point on Thursday afternoon. While
> at first everybody thought that a joint statement would be doable this
> year, on Thursday afternoon the general mood suddenly had changed and
> more and more people got concerned.
>
> There are particularly two issues with the text, one concerns the term
> "open ended", the at first broadly supported substitute for
> "permanent"; the other concerns the link between the extention of the
> mandate and IGF evaluation. The latter issue is more difficult to
> resolve because there are clearly different ideas as to how we should
> go about this. Some people think the UN is the right body to hold the
> IGF to account, others think we should develop our own evaluation and
> improvement procedures. Since people really care about this issue, it
> was not possible to simply leave it out or handle it on a very
> abstract level.
>
> Way forward: Yesterday afternoon I talked to various people to figure
> out a way to keep the statement alive. I did this because several
> governments told me that they see real merit in improving and
> finalizing the statement.
>
> So, the general spirit is that we should transform the final version
> of the statement into a living document or an intersessional object or
> whatever name we give to this baby. We should keep working on the text
> for a couple of weeks and try to find agreement on the open issues
> (more might come up, who knows).
>
> Personally I find it quite comforting that many stakeholders and
> governments are still willing to hold onto ithe idea of a joint
> statement. I am willing to help editing it but I won't be able to
> coordinate the endorsement process between governments and the
> relevant stakeholders.
>
> So, we need to find a person/organization who/which could do this
> including the necessary resources to support this task.
>
> I don't think we should stop endorsing the statement but, of course,
> we will have to notify the signatories at some point, explain the
> amendments of the statement they endorsed and ask them if they are
> willing to extent their endorsement to the new document.
>
> Is it worth sending this email also to the other mailing lists which
> were involved in this process?
>
> Jeanette
>
>
>
>
> Am 06.09.14 09:09, schrieb William Drake:
>> 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]
>> <mailto:[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]
>>> <mailto:[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 <http://www.igfcontinuity.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]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>> Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders Group, ICANN,
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
>>> <http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org/>
>>
|
