[WSIS CS-Plenary] Statement : possible next steps

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear Avri,
 I regret the discussion was so rushed this morning in Plenary and did not
allow a more detailed exploration of the latest version of your statement.
Furthermore, I probably read too quickly your final draft at 5 am before I
made my points on the opportunity of making the statement today and maybe
intervened in too harsh a manner.
 We are presently in an intermediary space, between the methods of work of
the Internet Community that are much more open and transparent, and the
methods of the UN system, that are much more rigid and closed. Depending
upon where one comes from, the present equilibrium looks like a progress or
a constraint. And it is both. This equilibrium is incredibly fragile and I
was just afraid of the possible tilting of the balance at a delicate moment,
if a very strong statement were made. on the implicit methodology adopted by
the Chairs.
 But your excellent draft has brought very good arguments and formulations
that could be used in another way very usefully. In a nutshell, the whole
legitimacy question can be applied to the outcome mechanisms of the WSIS
(both for Internet Governance and for other implementation mechanisms).
Could not we issue a statement at the end of this PrepCom that would :
- recognize the efforts of the Chairs (as you did)
- reaffirm that these mechanisms are not acceptable on a basis of principle
(as you did)
- stress that, as a consequence, they certainly are inadapted and
unsufficient for the follow-up framework to be adopted in Tunis
- should follow-up mechanisms be limited to such inefficient and
inappropriate procedures, the whole tunis Framework will lose credibility
and legitimacy
- only with full and effective participation of all stakeholders in the
functioning of the follow-up mechanisms will they be efficient and
legitimate
(wording to refine of course)
 The general idea is to move from trying to expand rules of procedures
during this PrepCom (which is hard to do beyond what we have today) towards
putting a benchmark on the follow-p mechanism itself. I am convinced that
governements will not agree on a complete set of mechanisms and will have to
set a group to define preceisely what multi-stakeholder fora and initiatives
are and should function. Our statement would therefore put pressure on how
the precise modalities of the follow-up framework should be established and
conceived.
 I am furious that the way governments make us work and push us in all
directions is bringing useless tensions among us and apologize if I raised
my voice this morning.
 Would you consider exploring this idea further ?
 Best
 Bertrand

 On 9/27/05, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> A final update of the statement addressing a few last minute comments.
> The statement will be made by Adam Peake.
>
> a.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050927/3e9e4113/attachment.htm