I would like to pick up on one point in Wolfgang’s posting, the long 
recognized position that consultation with stakeholders is not enough. 
In other work I have just spent time dealing with the ethics of 
archaeology, which at first glance may seem distant from our work around 
Internet governance, but where in fact the field faces many similar 
challenges.

The preservation and presentation of cultural heritage artifacts 
contrasts with collecting dinosaur bones. Dinosaurs are extinct but 
cultural communities are live concerned constituencies with regard to 
the whats, the hows, and the whys of cultural heritage. How are 
archaeologists dealing with this issue? Much of the field is well beyond 
"consultation" and deeply into stakeholder engagement in its work. 
Beyond that, at the leading edge of engagement, archaeologists are 
exploring the notion of stakeholder rights of engagement.  Stakeholder 
rights of engagement goes beyond Article 19 in the Universal Declaration 
of Human Rights. The idea of Stakeholder-rights is something that will 
require more attention and development across governance, policy 
development and implementation processes as we move forward.

Sam Lanfranco



On 17/12/2015 5:02 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> I also want to congratulate both our Coordination Committee and the individual speakers. To have five civil society spaekers in a Special session of the United Nations General Assembly is remarkable. It was also important to demonstrate that CS in this IG space is (still) united around values - mainly human rights and sustainable development - but is also diverse and has different approaches if it comes to the details.
>
> On the other hand, the whole procedure of the WSIS 10+ review process has to be questioned. The exclusion of non-governmental stakeholders in the final negotiations can not be a model for future Internet Governance discussions. One have to recognize that the two co-facilitators (and the president of the UNGA) did much more than one could expect to give non-governmental stakeholders opportunities to express their voices. However the future for producing outcome has to go beyond an "inter-governmental committee" which "consults" with stakeholders. The WSIS 10+ plenary during the IGF in Brazil, November 2015, was remarkable. Four micophones with four queues and one screen where language was emerging in an open dialogue. It demonstrated that the "NetMundial" model (with its even greater complexity) can work. Here we can see the first lights of a new Approach in the future. And the IGF - now safe for ten years - could be the bridge-builder for new innovative multistakeholder me!
 chanisms
 and outcomes.
>
> However, there is a long way to go. And there are different cultures. I recommend to read the speeches by president Xi and prime minister Medwedjew in Wuzhen. It is also worth to look into the details of the procedures of the "World Internet Conference" in Wuzhen, how stakeholders are placed and included and how this matches the criteria of opness, bottom up., transparent etc. I see some Problems but also interesting steps Forward. And I see some cross-fertilization among various "Internet World Summits". It would be good if a young academic would write a paper to compare procedures and substance of NetMundial, WSIS 10+ and WIC.
>
> Wolfgang