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 >> >>