<div>Dear Avri,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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 :
</div>
<div>- recognize the efforts of the Chairs (as you did)</div>
<div>- reaffirm that these mechanisms are not acceptable on a basis of principle (as you did) </div>
<div>- stress that, as a consequence, they certainly are inadapted and unsufficient for the follow-up framework to be adopted in Tunis</div>
<div>- should follow-up mechanisms be limited to such inefficient and inappropriate procedures, the whole tunis Framework will lose credibility and legitimacy</div>
<div>- only with full and effective participation of all stakeholders in the functioning of the follow-up mechanisms will they be efficient and legitimate </div>
<div>(wording to refine of course)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Would you consider exploring this idea further ? </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bertrand<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/27/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Avri Doria</b> <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi,<br><br>A final update of the statement addressing a few last minute comments.<br>The statement will be made by Adam Peake.
<br><br>a.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>