Hi

On Sep 6, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It wasn't the USG that brought the statement/letter down. My understanding is that it wasn't any single group or actor.

I said the latter, not the former, see below.
> 
> 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).

Again, agreed, it needs to evolve
> 
> 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.

I would have thought that continuing to ask for endorsements of the old letter and then circling back again when there’s a new one was more cycles than just waiting until there’s a new one, but as you like.

Cheers

Bill

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/>
>> 

***********************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************