<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt">Dear Mr Geiger</P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"> <?xml:namespace prefix = o
ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I thank you for your long mail answering my
message, sent to the governance list on November 30<SUP>th</SUP> and to the CS
plenary list on December 1<SUP>st</SUP> .<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">First of all, I do regret that we cannot use
our own language (both French and German) so as for me it costs a lot of time …
and it reflects only a part of what I’ve in mind (“language filter”!). But
unfortunately we have to conform to the “international
usage”.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">I understand your long comments rather as a
“plaidoyer pro domo” than as a relevant response to some concrete issues I
raised. I know the history and the rules of ITU, the memberships and respective
fees, and the subtleties of its Convention. I also know the WGs and SGs’
activities since I was involved in some of them years ago. Perhaps due to the
fact that I was more spending my ITU activities in the field (mostly Africa)
than in the tower, I may have a different sight on the issues we are dealing
with currently. I nevertheless respect your point of view.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">What I was asking for in my message is the
urgent need of the ITU to open itself to the <B>CS </B>not for political
purposes as you mentioned in your answer (see below), but because of its
<B>expertise</B>, its readiness, its commitment and its <B>voluntary
contribution</B> ! This is the vision I have of CS commitment in the ITU,
whatever the form of its “membership” may be. But presence of the CS in the ITU
isn’t enough : CS asks for making good cases on subjects they know (mostly far
better than ITU insiders could imagine) and for being listened to !
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">When I recall my misadventure outside the door
(in fact I wasn’t in the room since I was waiting for Mr Touré) of the “UN Group
on WSIS follow-up” meeting room (September 19<SUP>th</SUP>) , I only try to
underline the opposed attitudes of both the co-chairs of the meeting : OK for a
CS member to sit silently in the room from the Unesco, a polite NO from the ITU.
The case is self-illustrating. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">As far as the Working group of the Council (on
CS inclusion in ITU) is concerned, it was established in 2006 (Plénipo Antalya),
and its outcome two years later is a study on how CS is treated in other UN
bodies ! This seems rather “short” as we use to say in French. We should have at
least a proposal from the Council of the form they agree on for including the CS
in the structure and in the working process of the ITU. Instead of that, we’ll
have to wait 2010 for a decision being agreed on during the Plenipo and probably
another couple of years for implementing the (hard to take) decision … This
leaves just a couple of years up to the time limit 2015 for the Action plan
goals to be achieved. <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Permit me, Mr Geiger, to respectfully disagree
with your opinion you give in the following sentence : “They (the NGOs) do not
want to participate in working groups, they want to speak out in Plenary
meetings. They consider their participation as political, not technical”. Maybe
that there are NGOs who comply with your statement. But you may not generalize.
As for me, I recall that during the whole course of WSIS I never proclaimed
myself as a speaker at any plenaries. When that occurred it was following a
designation (some by votes) by CS groups (Content & Themes, caucuses, WGs)
or its plenary.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">There is also a contradiction in your comments
about the status of the ITU. You write : “As a <B>technical organization,
ITU</B> never felt …”. But -just for gving an example- since Kyoto (1994) ITU
organizes its regular <B>World Telecommunications Policy Forum,</B> the next to
be held in 2009. I often expressed my disagreement with this deviation (i.a. the
neoliberal discourse of the ITU since the early nineties and its catastrophic
consequences in DCs) the from its fundamental functions but it is now a matter
of fact (please, visit the CSDPTT website <A href="http://www.csdptt.org/"><FONT
color=#800080>www.csdptt.org</FONT></A> and read the story -or my vision on it-
of the ITU). <SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">What I’d stress once again is the urgency for
taking some major decisions I already mentioned during the WSIS. I’d just recall
my statement during its second phase you’ll find attached to this mail. The
three proposals for ITU to change or to improve are still valid. You’ll verify
that I always attached a high value to the ITU although I expressed some
criticisms. But these were, and still will be, documented.
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">As far as Internet governance is concerned I’m
probably one of the few (if there are others) CS members to support ITU in this
domain. But not with a “cheque en blanc”.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>At the recent EuroDIG meeting at Strasbourg, William Drake was also
somehow critical on the ITU and expressed some ideas for changing that. I
proposed to join him and if possible other CS members to propose some ways and
concrete answers we could debate with members of the European Parliament and/or
the council of Europe, as to allow them to present some proposals for reforming
the ITU. For your information you’ll find attached my report on this meeting
which was very interesting and was a kind of pre-European IGF we (the CS in
particular) want to put in place. These are some constructive suggestions which
proove that the CS isn’t only fond of speaking in plenaries …<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">BTW : the attached documents are in French.
I’ll add another one in English to compensate …<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">All the best<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Jean-Louis Fullsack<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Président de CSDPTT<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">Strasbourg, December 4<SUP>th</SUP>, 2008<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"><FONT
face=Arial size=2>PS : You'll also find the report of the ITU-CS meeting in may
2007. You'll see that I have some CS colleagues who are at least as critical as
I Am on the ITU ! </FONT></SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Charles.Geiger@unctad.org
href="mailto:Charles.Geiger@unctad.org">Charles Geiger</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=plenary@wsis-cs.org
href="mailto:plenary@wsis-cs.org">Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=plenary@wsis-cs.org
href="mailto:plenary@wsis-cs.org">plenary@wsis-cs.org</A> ; <A
title=plenary-bounces@wsis-cs.org
href="mailto:plenary-bounces@wsis-cs.org">plenary-bounces@wsis-cs.org</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, December 03, 2008 2:39
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw:
[governance] RE: ITU and ICANN - aloveless forced marriage</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the
entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for
specific people]<BR><BR>Click <A
href="http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/">http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/</A>
to access automatic translation of this
message!<BR>_______________________________________<BR><BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Having worked with ITU on the WSIS
process for several years, please allow me the following comments :
</FONT><BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>When Mr. Touré says that
"ITU is the most inclusive organization of the UN family", he is not
completely wrong. ITU is much older than the UN (ITU was founded in 1865) and
has a long tradition of working with business entities, which goes back to the
first part of the last century. The way business entities (and also some few
not-for-profit entities) cooperate with ITU is through "sector membership".
Sector membership is very different from the way NGOs participate in other UN
Agencies and Programs (and that is mostly where the misunderstanding comes
from). Sector membership is costly (the sector members pay a fee, which can be
waived under certain circumstances, e.g. for not-for-profit entities) and can
participate in Working Groups. Sector members have therefore the possibility
to influence decision-making at the beginning of the process. Sector members
are ready to pay the fee because it is in their own business interest (e.g. in
the standardisation field). No other UN Agency or Programme has such a close
cooperation with business (except perhaps in ILO, where you have tripartite
representation, from Government, from employers associations and from
employees associations/trade unions. ILO also is not a typical UN Agency, it
is also older than the UN). </FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>In the UN, which is at its basis a strictly intergovernmental
organization, NGOs and civil society were accepted since its creation as
"observers". The consultative status of NGOs with ECOSOC goes back to the
forties of the last century*. Other UN Agencies, Programmes and funds have
introduced similar "observer status" for NGOs, take UNESCO and
UNCTAD as examples. The "observer" status is different from the "Sector
member" status in ITU, or from the tripartite partner status in ILO. The
classical observer status in the UN is usually limited to Plenary and
subcommittee meetings (WSIS made some exceptions to this). NGOs can make
written inputs and on some occasions take the floor during the Plenary, but
they are not "negotiating" and cannot participate in closed meetings and in
working groups etc. (The Council Working Group mentioned below had
commissioned a study on how other UN Agencies work with civil society, the
study is at </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=2>http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/January/WG-Study-04-02-rev.2secretariat-UN-report-final.doc
) </FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2> </FONT>
<BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Mr. Fullsack knows very well that at the last
Plenipotentiary Meeting in Antalya, ITU has created a "Council Working Group
on the Study on the Participation of all relevant stakeholders in ITU
activities related to WSIS". The main question is if ITU should, besides the
possibilities of sector membership, introduce something similar to an
"observer" status for civil society, especially in the field of WSIS
implementation. There are many questions related to such a status, especially
compared to the ITU "membership" status of today, which in some respect gives
a stronger position to the "sector member" than possibly to a mere "observer".
But I agree tha the "sector member" status does not exactly fit for civil
society entities that do defend general societal interest like Human
Rights, Access to Knowledge, ICTs for Development etc.. Such NGOs are
used to the "observer" status in other UN entities, which is free of cost, and
do not see any interest in paying a fee for becoming ITU sector members. They
do not want to participate in working groups, they want to speak out in
Plenary meetings. They consider their participation as political, not
technical. The Council Working group is under the chairmanship of
Argentian and Switzerland. We shall see what proposals are brought forward by
the Working group to the 2009 Council Meeting. (For more information, see
http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/ and the powerpoint
presentation at
http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2007/civilsocietyconsultation/Documents/Civil_Society_and_ITU.ppt
)</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Mr. Fullsack complains
further that he was sent out of the room at the beginning of a WSIS
facilitators meeting last September in ITU. This statement is misleading. I am
not sure if Mr. Fullsack realized that he wanted to participate as an
observer at the yearly <B>UNGIS</B> meeting. He was in fact kindly asked
by Mr. Touré to leave the room. The UN Group on the Information Society is a
meeting where UN Agencies discuss and coordinate the UN-systemwide
implementation of WSIS. UNGIS does not (or should not) deal with Action Line
Facilitation. UNGIS was created by the Chief Executive Board of the UN (where
civil society is never present, not even government observers would be
allowed) and is an internal administrative steering meeting. It is the kind of
meeting where one Agency can tell another Agency that it is unhappy with the
performace etc. These kind of internal steeering committee meetings
(where you can also wash dirty laundry) have never been open to
observers, and it is wrong to take the example of a traditionally closed
meeting as proof of ITUs reluctance to deal with civil society. In my view,
ITU is not reluctant to deal with civil society, the problem is different:
As a techical organization, ITU never felt the need to create an
observer status for <B>political</B> participation of civil society. But
<B>where Mr. Fullsack is correct</B>: Internet Governance is a highly<B>
political </B>theme, and if ITU wants to play a role in this field, it will
have to open up to civil society and to create a format for meaningful
participation of civil society representatives. </FONT><BR><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>Finally, where I cannot agree with Mr. Fullsack is on
the "non-inclusiveness" of WSIS. I think that Mr. Touré's statement about the
inclusiveness of WSIS is correct. WSIS was the second UN Summit to accredit
civil society <B>and</B> business (the first Summit that accredited business
entities was the Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development). Besides the
more than 3000 NGOs in consultative status with ECOSOC, which had automatic
accreditation to WSIS, Governments accredited more than 1'300 civil
society entities, including University Institutes (a novelty, no other UN
Summit had ever accredited academic instititions) and local authorities (e.g.
the city of Geneva, or the city of Lyon, also a novelty for UN Summits). At
both Summits, in Geneva and in Tunis, there were about as many participants
from civil society as from Governments. For the first time in the history of
UN Summits, Summit working documents carried the inputs from Governments and
from observers in the same document, often on the same page. My guess is that
30 to 50% of the final text of the Summit outcome documents originate
somewhere in civil society inputs, and were taken over by Government
representatives in one or the other way (it is impossible to trace every idea
to its roots in a negotiation process as complicated as WSIS). I don't think
that this kind of large inputs from civil society took place at the
Johannesburg or the Stockholm Summits. Also, in no other UN Summit, observers
(including civil society representatives) spoke directly in the Summit
segement, after heads of State and Government (usually, observers speak
in UN Summits in the high-level or in the ministerial segment of a Summit).
You find some more explanations about participation of observers in WSIS on
the WSIS website at http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/multistakeholder.html and in
an interview I gave to Reza Salim from Bangladesh in Summer 2008, published
recently at
http://www.iconnect-online.org/News/wsis-and-beyond-a-reality-check. And yes,
ITU was indeed the lead agency for the preparations of WSIS, but the way civil
society was handled in WSIS was mostly decided by the WSIS Intergovernmental
Bureau, where the decisive influence did not come from ITU, but from the two
PrepCom Presidents, Adama Samassékou and Janis Karklins. </FONT>
<BR><BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>Charles Geiger </FONT><BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2>former Executive Director, WSIS</FONT> <BR><FONT
face=sans-serif size=2> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=sans-serif size=2>* if you
look at the list of entities in consultative status with ECOSOC, at
http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf , you will see that
some entities in general consultative status have this status since 1946 or
1947! </FONT><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD width="40%"><FONT face=sans-serif size=1><B>"jlfullsack"
<jlfullsack@wanadoo.fr></B> </FONT><BR><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1>Sent by: plenary-bounces@wsis-cs.org</FONT>
<P><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>01.12.2008 10:40</FONT>
<TABLE border=1>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD bgColor=white>
<DIV align=center><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Please respond
to<BR>Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space
<plenary@wsis-cs.org></FONT></DIV></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></P>
<TD width="59%">
<TABLE width="100%">
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>To</FONT></DIV>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif
size=1><plenary@wsis-cs.org></FONT>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>cc</FONT></DIV>
<TD>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<DIV align=right><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>Subject</FONT></DIV>
<TD><FONT face=sans-serif size=1>[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw:
[governance] RE: ITU and ICANN - a loveless
forced marriage</FONT></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<TABLE>
<TBODY>
<TR vAlign=top>
<TD>
<TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR><BR><BR><FONT
size=2><TT>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the
entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for
specific people]<BR><BR>Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access
automatic translation of this
message!<BR>_______________________________________<BR><BR></TT></FONT><FONT
size=3></FONT><BR><FONT size=3>----- Original Message ----- </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>From:</B> </FONT><A href="mailto:jlfullsack@wanadoo.fr"><FONT
color=blue size=3><U>jlfullsack</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>To:</B> </FONT><A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><FONT
color=blue size=3><U>governance@lists.cpsr.org</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> ;
</FONT><A href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu"><FONT color=blue
size=3><U>David Allen</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 01, 2008 10:30 AM</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3><B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] RE: ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced
marriage</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>This statement of the ITU
Secretary general is by far less questionable than a lot of other statements
made in this long speach at the Cairo ICANN meeting. But unfortunately it
is'nt complete. He forgot to mention ITU's responsibilities in that issue. At
least in the time-wasting way of leading the whole post-WSISI process, of
which IGF is just one part.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>As for me, I took my time for reading the whole stuff and
found a lot of other, even more questionable statements : </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>- Mr Touré was confusing the respective role of ITU and
ICANN, and what's more, their statutes !</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>-
"It (the ITU) is the most inclusive organization of the UN family". May I
recall that I was waiting on the door before the beginning of the ITU-Unesco
chaired WSIS facilitators meeting last september in Genva. I asked both chairs
(Mr Khan and Mr Touré) for being allowed -as a WSIS accredited membrer of CS-
to only sit in the room for listening. Whereas the Unesco chair agreed with a
smile, the ITU refused firmly ! Unless to say I was angry, having been for
more than twenty years an ITU senior expert (in both development and
standardisation sectors). Moreover, nowhere we find a clear explanation on
this "CS inclusiveness" of the ITU : who are the these "CS members" ? How much
do they pay, and on which criteria are they selected ? </FONT><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>- "But it (WSIS) was the most inclusive Summit ever". That's
not true Mr Touré : the Jo'burg Earth Summit (and the following Stockholm
Summit) was far more and really CS inclusicve, and the whole press, national,
regional and international papers, regularly reported on it. This wasn't the
case of the WSIS, despite desperate attempts of its "communicators" the fist
of which the ITU. </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT> <BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>-" Our members need to be informed about those things"
(Internet of things, IPv6) "And we are doing that. The resolution from the
WTSA last week, taken by our 191 member states and 700 companies, private
companies , is to study and encourage the implementation of IPv6. I believe
this is a concern for all of us."</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2>OK but, Please, where is the CS in this process ? We need
social and economic impacts to be studied in relation to new technologies as
soon as at the early stage of their design and their actual impact is is to be
assesed preferably before they are deployed. This applies for both developed
and developing countries (even more stringently in the latter). We need a more
serious and profound job to be done in this field and this isn't the scope of
ITU mandate ! Where are we, the WSIS CS, in this field ? IGF is just one
of these paramount issues and is therefore relevant in the open and urgent
debate. </FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>Wolgang raised the question of CS inclusion in the ITU after this
speach. That was fine. But once Hamadoun Touré had delivered his biased (and
partly false) response, our CS fellow didn't question the ITU Head. It was
Ambassador Karklins who answered him : "It was very interesting to listen to
you. You are on the record, and I believe that many member states who are
listening to you will bring what you have said to the council in ITU". Thank
you, Janis Karklins !</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=1> </FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2>This is the point the CS participating member(s) had just missed !
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>All
the best</FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jean-Louis Fullsack</FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=1> </FONT><BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>(</FONT><FONT size=3>----- Original Message ----- </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>From:</B> </FONT><A
href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu"><FONT color=blue
size=3><U>David Allen</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>To:</B> </FONT><A href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><FONT
color=blue size=3><U>governance@lists.cpsr.org</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3>
</FONT><BR><FONT size=3><B>Cc:</B> </FONT><A
href="mailto:gov@wsis-gov.org"><FONT color=blue
size=3><U>gov@wsis-gov.org</U></FONT></A><FONT size=3> </FONT><BR><FONT
size=3><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:57 AM</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3><B>Subject:</B> [governance] RE: ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced
marriage</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=3>At 4:32 PM +1100 11/9/08, Ian Peter
wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>The telling statement
from ITU being "I am personally of the opinion that the IGF is continuously
going round in circles and avoiding issues - it is becoming more and more a
waste of time."</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3> </FONT> <BR><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Interested in analysis of how we can avoid
this.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3><BR>One suggestion:</FONT> <BR><A
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGF%20multi-stakeholderism%20-%20D%20Allen.pdf"><FONT
color=blue
size=3><U>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGF%20multi-stakeholderism%20-%20D%20Allen.pdf</U></FONT></A>
<BR><FONT size=3><snip></FONT> <BR><BR><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>My fear here is that the outcomes if IGF doesn't succeed in addressing
the real issues are worse than those ...</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=3><BR><snip></FONT> <BR><FONT face="Times New Roman" color=#000080
size=3>Ian Peter</FONT> <BR><BR><FONT size=3>Sorry for the delay in
responding,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=3>David</FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P><FONT
size=3>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list
information and functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</FONT><FONT
size=2><TT>_______________________________________________<BR>Plenary mailing
list<BR>Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR></TT></FONT>
<P>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Plenary mailing
list<BR>Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>