William Hello, hello all, I agree with Avri In my opinion, this is not nothing because the proposal was listened to and if governments want to consult with respect to the gait, I think we can consider in a positive light. But this requires us to track and remain attentive to these same steps if we will resume the approval process. *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* *REPRESENTANT TICAFRICA ET CYBERVILLAGE@FRICA/RDC* *COORDINATION NATIONALE CAFECCOORDINATION NATIONALE REPRONTIC* Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 email : [log in to unmask] skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr 2014-09-06 10:31 GMT+02:00 William Drake <[log in to unmask]>: > 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 > >> > >> >