Thanks Mona, for sending this around, I have one concern about and otherwise excellent statement.

I question deletion of the reference to “critical internet infrastructure” - while the correct term is “critical information infrastructure,” protecting that as a form of critical infrastructure should be something we can all support. Critical infrastructure protection is a different order of magnitude than simply protecting infrastructure is, as critical infrastructure includes those forms of infrastructure which are necessary to life and health. 

I think we would all agree that the Internet is fundamental to health and welfare in the modern world. 

I would request that instead of deleting this phrase we simply call for the term to be corrected.

I am of course always open to thoughts.

• On behalf of the Internet Society, I would like to begin by thanking you, DESA and the co-facilitators, for keeping the WSIS process as open and transparent as possible, and for welcoming stakeholders views on t views on the first revision of the zero draft.
  The Internet Society is committed to bridging the digital divide by supporting connectivity and sustainable infrastructure, and to ensuring the Internet remains an open, secure and trusted global resource for everyone.
  On this occasion, noting time is running short, we would like to offer some general remarks and recommendations to keep the text crisp, concise and action focused.
  The Internet is empowering more people, more services, and more development opportunities than ever. Which is precisely why the WSIS+20 review outcome document should reinforce what keeps it open, globally connected, secure, and trustworthy.
  Firstly, we would like to note that the section entitled “Enabling environment for digital development”, should explicitly include elements that help achieve an enabling environment.
  Paragraph 48 should include measures such as “proportionate taxation and licensing fees, access to finance, facilitation of public-private partnerships, multistakeholder cooperation, national and regional broadband strategies, efficient allocation of radio frequency spectrum, infrastructure sharing models, community-based approaches, and public access facilities.”
  Secondly, in paragraph 53, we note the reference to “critical Internet infrastructure”, which has no agreed definition, and would like to call for it’s deletion, as the paragraph already importantly recognizes the efforts to protect infrastructure.
  Additionally, we welcome the substantive changes introduced to the “Internet Governance” section.
  Including the permanent mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the recognition of the NETmundial+10 guidelines for multistakeholder collaboration and consensus building.
  As well as paragraph 120 which provides recommendations on how to strengthen coherence between the WSIS vision and GDC commitments.
  However, paragraph 101, which invites the Secretary-General to make proposals concerning future funding of the IGF , needs to be done in consultation with existing IGF funders and stakeholders to ensure stable, predictable, and sustainable financial support of the Forum.
  Regarding paragraph 119, we recommend retaining the call for multistakeholder advice to UNGIS to ensure more effective collaboration, information exchange, and to avoid duplication.
  As we noted in the previous consultation, the Internet Society will keep working with our global community of chapters, individual and organization members to translate these priorities into additional concrete recommendations as the process reaches its final stages.
  Our aim is the same as yours: a WSIS+20 outcome that people can rally around, that strengthens multistakeholder collaboration, and that keeps the Internet open, globally connected, secure and trustworthy for everyone.