<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Thanks for this Bill, I am not quite sure whether you are suggesting
we kill the letter and take it down??<br>
<br>
The agreement that I have discussed with a few of the other
stakeholders is that separate but congruent letters (acknowledging
the other letter but expressing nuance) is the way they/we are
thinking of going. If you have had separate discussions please lets
talk so we dont get different messages going....I realize we are
civil society so everyone gets to say what they like to whomever
they like, but it would be really nice if we all pulled in the same
direction. I am keeping in touch with my country folks, perhaps we
could share what we are permitted to share from each country as we
learn about it? and thanks for kicking off by sharing this!<br>
Personally, having worked in government but not the UN, I would have
been surprised if "open-ended" had sailed through anywhere, but we
did incorporate three revisions from State Department so we gave
them an opportunity, showed openness and the willingness to
cooperate. <br>
This is not a treaty, (I sound like I sounded at Netmundial) for
heaven's sake, we do not need to slice words so that we fall to the
lowest common denominator (which will not be enough for civil
society) but we do need to consult cooperatively to avoid stupidity
and language that is counter-productive to other ongoing
negotiations only they (governments and industry) are aware of. I
think we look weak if we change the text of a letter we have
signature on. I think we weaken future campaigns if we kill this
letter. I suggest we sign on to any future negotiated text which
they come back with if we can, and attach the letter with all the
signatures to it. I think this is good practice, based on what I
know from other exercises, but of course we can run that by
governments to see if it damages the letter they come up with. It
is important to me that civil society show some consistency. <br>
<br>
Finally, I would like to point out what I think is important when
civil society is cooperating with government and industry: it is <b>extremely</b>
important the we always bargain in good faith and are honest.
However, we need not always expect that treatment. There is a lot
of story telling and "back channeling" out there. This is why we
need to determine before an initiative, meeting or negotisation
exactly where our bottom line is, well before hand (which was tough
this time given the time frame, especially for me, a relative newbie
at Netmundial and certainly not an inside player or power broker
like many others on this list. <br>
I would respectfully suggest that we need to do this on the
Notmundial exercise (whatever they are calling it now) and if there
are people going to the ITU plenipot, they need to consult the group
on key issues and share whatever is not provided in confidence. I
will certainly undertake to do that, as I expect to be preparing a
short report on an upcoming meeting/debrief.<br>
<br>
I realize I sound like an ex-government bureaucrat. That is what I
am. I humbly submit that I know something about these processes. I
am somewhat cynical because I have witnessed at close hand many
attempts/strategies to jolly civil society along, keep them busy,
and then dump their efforts. This is not trout fishing, we are not
fish to be played until we are completely exhausted. We need to
grab the fly and leave the hook behind. (apologies to non-english
native speakers for this analogy).<br>
<br>
Finally, I would like to thank Jeanette for working so hard with me
(a total stranger) on this effort this week, and to all those who
jumped in to help up, notably Matthew who came in a crisis and
Anriette who hosted at the last minute at APC and put up with grumpy
steph who had been up most of the night working on texts. It was a
real pleasure getting this done, and I do not think we should drop
it, I think we should send it November 1 as planned, so if you don't
object I shall continue to round up signatures and continue to work
with Jeanette to figure out a process that does not conflict with
what governments are doing. I will of course focus on Canada, but
there are other countries who might be willing to help us. <br>
<br>
Stephanie<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-09-06, 3:09, William Drake
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:83599B3B-B5A4-4E77-9169-4B7BD4278FCF@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Hello
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Sep 5, 2014, at 5:11 PM, DeeDee Halleck <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:deedeehalleck@GMAIL.COM">deedeehalleck@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">+1
<div>DeeDee Halleck, Deep Dish Network</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:47 AM,
Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div> <br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big><big>Dear
colleagues and fellow stakeholders of the
Internet Governance Forum: <br>
This is further to our message of September
4th, portions of which follow:<br>
<br>
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.<br>
....... <br>
UPDATE<br>
We have created a neutral website for this
project at <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igfcontinuity.org/"
target="_blank">www.igfcontinuation.org</a>,
to accept sign-ons of organizations,
countries, and individuals. Please note that
this is a different URL from the one
circulated yesterday. <br>
The undersigned will continue to collect your
signatures and description of your
organization if you have<br>
trouble signing on. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
1. Jane Smith Individual <br>
2. Acme Industry Association Association
representing 150 manufacturers of widgets <br>
3. [Country x] Government Please do not
hesitate to contact us if you have questions.
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann, Berlin Social Science
Center, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu"
target="_blank">jeanette@wzb.eu</a> <br>
Stephanie Perrin, Non-commercial Stakeholders
Group, ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>
</big></big></font><br>
<big><big> </big></big><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org</a></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>