[governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing
Carlos A. Afonso
ca at cafonso.ca
Wed Feb 17 10:37:37 EST 2010
One point in Parm's text (with which I agree) is the static limitation
of having to be "WSIS-accredited ngo" in order to be formally
involved. In four years hundreds of relevant CS players appeared --
any of us can point to examples. Another outdated constraint which
should be dropped.
--c.a.
enviado via iPhone
On 17/02/2010, at 10:08, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Jeremy,
>
> You may consider these comments too late in the day and may ignore
> them. I havent reached Bangalore yet after the open consultations
> and thus the delay.
>
> However if you are still considering major changes i would suggest
> that we make a simple though strong statement that IGF review should
> be an elaborate process with MS involvement, and it is but
> appropriate that UN Secy Gen's recommendations based on the formal
> consultations with IGF participants at Sharm is presented to the
> CSTD before it is reviewed by ECOSOC and then the UN Gen Assembly
> which makes the final decision. CSTD clearly has a formal role in
> WSIS follow up as per section 105 of TA, and IGF review is obviously
> a part of WSIS review.
>
> We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater
> multistakeholder (MS) involvement.
>
> However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation.
> I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums
> in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do
> know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS
> accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much
> more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only
> in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in
> drafting processes, though informal practices may operate
> (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should
> push it too much.
>
> In fact, in making the statement it might be best to stress the CSTD
> factor, since CSTD is formally assigned to do WSIS follow up and not
> so much the MS point (which should follow form implication) because
> TA para 76 clearly says that UN Secy Gen after formal consultations
> with IGF participants will 'make recommendations to the UN
> membership'. We can say that CSTD, like ECOSOC is extension of the
> UN membership review system.
>
> parminder
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>> I think I have incorporated everyone's suggestions in what appears
>> below. If not, let me know. If all is well, my feeling is that we
>> can probably move swiftly to a consensus call. If not, please
>> contribute specific language that would address your dissatisfaction.
>>
>> When the consensus call is made, responding to feedback from last
>> time, I propose to experiment with Web-based polling, rather than
>> the usual stream of "YES" and "NO" emails to the list (though the
>> list can and should still be used for comments during the consensus
>> call period). If there are any objections to that, please say so
>> now.
>>
>> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED
>> NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and
>> its unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet
>> Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as
>> a potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the
>> last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February that your
>> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed
>> by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for
>> Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to
>> those of several governments who spoke to similar effect at that
>> open consultation meeting.
>>
>> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the
>> Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS
>> and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet
>> Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental)
>> approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in
>> their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was
>> paved by the constructive and substantial work the civil society
>> representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular
>> in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in
>> December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States
>> (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the
>> contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet
>> Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder
>> discussion platform" was the result of this.
>>
>> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes,
>> including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review
>> and assessment work tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional
>> commissions, which for this purpose was to be strengthened "taking
>> into account the multistakeholder approach". (Tunis Agenda, para
>> 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other stakeholders was
>> formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and
>> 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs,
>> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited
>> to participate in the work of the CSTD.
>>
>> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC
>> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including
>> assessments on the performance of the IGF. Its multi-stakeholder
>> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as
>> innovative and successful. A similar approach has also resulted in
>> success in other forums: for example, national and regional IGFs
>> that have brought valuable contributions to the debates and
>> dialogues in the main IGF. There is therefore no reason for a
>> sudden departure from this process on the question of the
>> continuation of the IGF.
>>
>> In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder
>> institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is
>> limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration
>> by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were
>> accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with
>> ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC
>> at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-
>> stakeholder institution.
>>
>> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open
>> and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental
>> stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when
>> civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room
>> after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the
>> real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten
>> PrepComs to change this.
>>
>> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by
>> transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to
>> the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting, where they will be
>> open for review by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the
>> review of a unique multi-stakeholder institution. Should it not be
>> possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy
>> of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately
>> made by the General Assembly might well be reduced.
>>
>> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our
>> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder
>> forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues,
>> located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat
>> under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and
>> Social Affairs (UNDESA).
>>
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Project Coordinator
>> Consumers International
>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>> Lumpur, Malaysia
>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>
>> CI is 50
>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer
>> movement in 2010.
>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>> consumer rights around the world.
>> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
>>
>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email
>> unless necessary.
>>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100217/c39cccca/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list