<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-2022-jp">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Hi
Jean-Louis,</FONT></FONT></P>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Perhaps it would be
helpful by way of background to pass along a message sent yesterday to the
governance list. </DIV>
<P>Bottom line, it's an ITU meeting, not a WSIS meeting, subject to ITU
procedures. I've inquired about whether some invites can be allocated for
CS 'stakeholder representation,' which is not the model they're following in
relation to non-members. We'll see what happens. Of course, it would
be good to know when asking for this if in fact there are people who would
actually be prepared to attend, given that there's no budget for travel
support....?</P>
<P>Best,</P>
<P>Bill<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: William Drake [</FONT><A
href="mailto:wdrake@ictsd.ch"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>mailto:wdrake@ictsd.ch</FONT></A><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>]<BR>Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 2:04 PM<BR>To:
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>Subject: CS Participation in ITU's Internet
Governance Workshop<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>Had a call this morning from Bob Shaw at
ITU about their upcoming event </FONT><A
href="http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/index.html" target=_blank><FONT
face="Times New Roman"
size=3>http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/forum/intgov04/index.html</FONT></A><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>. We had a useful and lengthy conversation
from which several points of local interest emerged.<BR><BR>1.
Focus. There has been debate on this list about the scope of governments'
intentions and thinking with respect to 'Internet governance' and, in
consequence, what we should be focusing on as a group. It sounds like the
ITU's reading of its members' interests is consistent with what I had thought
was the rather unambiguous language of the summit declaration, and indeed the
whole preparatory process. They are not equating 'Internet governance'
with just the activities of ICANN, and the workshop is not about just ICANN and
whether ITU should be taking over its management of identifiers etc (although of
course these issues are inevitably a key part of the mix). Taking into
account the landscape of international arrangements that impact Internet
infrastructure, services, communication and commerce, the goal is to define
Internet governance broadly and identify those aspects thereof that could
require national and global public policies (implicitly, the latter might be
areas ITU could have a lead role in). So it's fairly open ended, and could
entail anything from interconnection/ICAIS to taxation to whatever.
Indeed, Bob noted that ITU is organizing a workshop in the spring on spam that
is understood to build directly on this event.<BR><BR>2. Relation to
WSIS/Invitation Process. While the WSIS process gives rise to the meeting,
this is an ITU event, to "initiate a process to prepare ITU's inputs and
position" vis-a-vis the UN working group. As such, it is the rules and
organizational culture of ITU that apply here, not those of WSIS. This
goes directly to how they have been approaching the matter of invitations to
participate. They have been following a top down model in which the
secretariat reaches out to selected individual experts to round out a meeting
that will be overwhelmingly populated by the governments and businesses that are
the ITU's paying members and sector members, respectively. They were not
thinking of civil society organizations as an fixed constituency that should be
'represented' per se and thus should have a right to nominate representatives on
a bottom up basis. Moreover, the secretariat people involved are generally
speaking not quite up to speed on the whole WSIS CS process and apparatus.
Bob for example had no idea how we are organized---bureau, plenary, CT,
families/caucuses/WGs etc---and have made decisions, and hence didn't know how
to respond when various individuals started writing to say they represented xyz
CS grouping and hence would like to attend, expenses paid please. I should
add that, contrary to something I conjectured about previously, he says the
line-up of participants will definitely include plenty of critics of the
ITU.<BR><BR>3. Participation of the Caucus. In fact, the caucus will
be almost disproportionately well represented, with (if I recall correctly) at a
minimum Vittorio, Izumi, Milton, Bertrand, Wolfgang, and myself in
attendance. But we are invited as individual experts, not as caucus
representatives (he didn't know much about the caucus). Per the invite
letter, we are asked as individuals to consider writing something. I asked
whether it would be ok if, should the caucus get it together to write a joint
statement, this could be presented by someone as part of the program. He
said sure, why not, we can have a slot for this somewhere in sessions 1-4.
So as I think others have suggested, we should move on both tracks, individual
and collective inputs, to ensure non-government/business thinking is well
represented.<BR><BR>The above begs two questions:<BR><BR>a. While the
process discussions have at times been made unnecessarily unpleasant, we clearly
need to make final decision on the caucus name, coordinators, and website.
We obviously cannot issue a joint statement etc. without doing these
things.<BR><BR>b. We need to figure out how we are going to coordinate
with the larger WSIS CS structure. We can adopt a joint statement as a
caucus, but should we also be seeking a broader endorsement thereof? Or
should we even be thinking of something that would not be a caucus statement,
but rather a statement that would be done with and endorsed by the much broader
range of organizations that have devoted time and energy to WSIS? As I
said in a message on Dec. 19, I personally think we should not assume that by
default this group 'owns' any issue that arises related to 'Internet
governance,' and that we should actively engage others.<BR><BR>4.
Participation of WSIS CSOs More Generally. Finally, while ITU was not
thinking of constituency representation, I urged Bob to start. In
particular, I asked that he consult with his colleagues and see if it wouldn't
be possible to reserve a block of invitations, like maybe ten, for people who
could be nominated from the larger assemblage of CS groups in WSIS, even though
this isn't a WSIS event. He said that would be tough because they have a
limited number of bodies they can accommodate and the governments and businesses
involved in ITU will want to provide most of them; indeed, rather interestingly,
he noted that he'd heard from some businesses that they wanted slots because
they'd heard the CSO people were getting slots! Anyway, we'll see if
anything can be done. He noted that no matter what's decided on this
score, there's no money to fly people in etc.<BR><BR>So that's
that.<BR><BR>Best,<BR><BR>Bill</FONT><BR><BR><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org<BR>> [<A
href="mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org">mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org</A>]On
Behalf Of Fullsack Jean-Louis<BR>> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 10:51
PM<BR>> To: plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> Cc: bjaffre@csdptt.org<BR>>
Subject: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet<BR>> governance
:roles of plenary and governance lists<BR>><BR>><BR>> Sorry, Wolfgang,
Adam and others<BR>> Once more the ITU Secretary general has selected
his<BR>> interlocutors. This is<BR>> unacceptable for the Civil
Society.<BR>> If the CS is to participate as a speeking partner in these
"panel<BR>> discussions" we -the CS Plenary- ought to be informed previously
about the<BR>> content and rationale of the CS contributions and/or position.
And we -the<BR>> CS Plenary- are to designate our representative(s)
accordingly.<BR>> No closed doors negociations on behalf of the CS and please
no<BR>> "welcome" for<BR>> Utsumi's nominal "invitations".<BR>>
Jean-Louis Fullsack<BR>> CSDPTT<BR>><BR>><BR>> ----- Original
Message -----<BR>> From: "AIZU" <aizu@anr.org><BR>> To:
<plenary@wsis-cs.org>; "Governance"
<governance@lists.cpsr.org><BR>> Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:02
PM<BR>> Subject: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet
governance<BR>> :roles of plenary and governance
lists<BR>><BR>><BR>> > I also received an invitation from ITU a few
hours ago, and<BR>> > am trying to modify my schedule to go.<BR>>
><BR>> > I fully agree with Vittorio that we should coordinate our
participation.<BR>> ><BR>> > izumi<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> At 11:04 04/01/21 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:<BR>> >
>wolfgang@imv.au.dk ha scritto:<BR>> > >> Thanks Adam &
Jeanette,<BR>> > >> this is good step forward.<BR>>
> >> What do you think about a Caucus Website?<BR>> >
><BR>> > >Actually, I was tasked with preparing it in Geneva,
and I have started<BR>> > working. I stopped when the discussion on our
name & domain name went<BR>> > nowhere, but if we can accept to live
with the name Adam<BR>> registered on his<BR>> > own (gov-net.org), I
think I can come up with an initial site<BR>> by the next<BR>> >
weekend. At least, I hope so.<BR>> > ><BR>> >
>> I think the letter to Kofi Annanエs office is as urgent as a<BR>>
letter to<BR>> > Utsumi. It should be short letters. Could you write a
first draft?<BR>> > ><BR>> > >Support. I think our
new coordinators should manage the agenda and get<BR>> > deliverables done
:)<BR>> > ><BR>> > >> Concerning the letter to
Utsumi, we should take note in this letter<BR>> > (and welcome), that some
Caucus members has been invited by him in their<BR>> > personal capacity
as experts and than propose three other<BR>> names. As far as<BR>> > I
know Milton and Betrand has been invited officially.<BR>> >
><BR>> > >I got an "early notice of an invitation" yesterday
evening.<BR>> (So I don't<BR>> > need a "ticket" from the caucus, I
think.)<BR>> > ><BR>> > >An interesting note is
that the invitation says that invited<BR>> experts are<BR>> > supposed
to express their preference on whether they would like "to<BR>> >
>either introduce their contributions, make presentations and/or<BR>>
> >participate in panel discussions". I think we should
coordinate<BR>> ourselves<BR>> > so that CS people don't end up all in
the panels or all making<BR>> > presentations... The agenda is not clear
yet, but, if we can, I think we<BR>> > should try to get a CS person in
every relevant panel (assuming that the<BR>> > organizers will agree, of
course...)<BR>> > >--<BR>> > >.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo
vb.<BR>> > >Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu.org<BR>>
> ><A href="http://bertola.eu.org/"
target=_blank>http://bertola.eu.org/</A> <-- Vecchio sito,
nuovo toblog!<BR>> > ><BR>> >
>_______________________________________________<BR>> >
>Plenary mailing list<BR>> > >Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>>
> ><A href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary"
target=_blank>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</A><BR>>
> ><BR>> ><BR>> >
_______________________________________________<BR>> > Plenary mailing
list<BR>> > Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> > <A
href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary"
target=_blank>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</A><BR>><BR>>
</FONT></P></BODY></HTML>