Yes, I can see there are two ways forward, one is multiple related statements from whoever feels called to issue one on this matter; the other is to work on another joint statement.
The first one is less difficult and perhaps more promising. We need to consult on these options more widely to understand the tradeoff between a pragmatic, distributed approach and the intended impact on UNGA.
jeanette
Am 06.09.14 11:00, schrieb Stephanie Perrin:
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/>