<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Jeremy, Katitza, Wolfgang, Yrjö, all:<br>
<br>
I would like to formally ask Katitza to propose a statement for
discussion, since she has wide knowledge and experience (as do others)
in this area.<br>
<br>
Kati, can you give us a starting point?<br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
Best,<br>
Ginger<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org"
type="cite">Greetings:
<br>
<br>
Thanks for sharing your substantial thoughts on this overall process,
Wolfgang/Yrjö. While IGC where discussing its statement, I have asked
the list members to hear your opinions on this specific tension. I
received only one very brief comment on the history and the tensions of
the broader picture. Therefore, I would like to add a call to your
call, that there is a need to share strategics and knowledge between
everyone (old/young generations) and with other stakeholders, if we
want to suceed!
<br>
<br>
We should write a statement!
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Dear list
<br>
<br>
I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises
its voice in this case.
<br>
<br>
My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move
backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to
withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to
get the Internet policy processes back under control of an
intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental stakeholders,
at least if it comes to public policy issues and decision making.
<br>
<br>
This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" 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 soceity 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 CS folks 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 xcontribution to the results of the UN Working Group on
Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a
"multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It
emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because
governments were unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in
the understanding of many delegates was aimed to exclude
non-governmental stakeholders).
<br>
<br>
However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of
"sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006
and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning the
presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the
transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that - as an
example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism"
but always the term "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles.
"Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" in the text of the Tunis
Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 compromise which defined the
mandate of the WGIG). But for international lawyers it is very clear
that the legal understanding of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental".
Parties in a "multilateral convention" are only governments.
<br>
<br>
The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was
first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later
taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of
Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people
in New York they send you to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism"
as basic approach to develop global policies. No multistakholderism in
the UN Security Council!!! The so-called "Cardozo-Report", which
investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy development - once initiated
by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives and no single government
in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to draft a resolution
with a follow up.
<br>
<br>
I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people
the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is
driven also by the political strategic aim to remove
"multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public
arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by
some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the
secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal
outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence
non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not
buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend.
<br>
<br>
The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also
hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with
non-governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the
International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR),
where I am an elected member of the International Council and the
liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s.
But the only thing we can do is to send written statements which are
published before the meeting. You can speculate how many ECOSOC reps
read all these statements (sometimes several hundred pages). You have
no right to negotiate, you have no right to speak, you have even no
right to access the meeting room and to brief (or lobby) delegates.
<br>
<br>
With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open
and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading
behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society
(and 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.
<br>
<br>
This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by
the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led
by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD).
During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no
non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy
Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs and the
involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was asked about
his understanding of "multistakeholderism".
<br>
<br>
During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS
Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked
officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental
mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process
- more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining
functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And
this is now also under fire.
<br>
<br>
I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders
and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the
bigger political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What
you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political
strategy to find the places where you can make your substantial
arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your role and
self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And you have to
look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and private sector
institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree - in this context
in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united.
<br>
<br>
And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet
Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation
of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy.
<br>
<br>
Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting
times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the
2010s.
<br>
<br>
Best wishes
<br>
<br>
Wolfgang
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________
<br>
<br>
Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com">mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com</a>]
<br>
Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48
<br>
An: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, I think there should be a statement.
<br>
<br>
After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that
it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were
immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European)
governments as well as from private sector representatives, asking for
explanation why CSTD would be cut out of the process.
<br>
<br>
<br>
The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the
implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and
ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the
ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the
perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from
this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF.
<br>
<br>
<br>
As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last
summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector
representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence
the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the
ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about
"participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Yrjö Länsipuro
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________
<br>
<br>
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>
<br>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500
<br>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the
continuation of the IGF
<br>
<br>
Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have
subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between
UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's
recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered,
prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision.
<br>
<br>
UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the
Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to
ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC,
thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for
consideration at its upcoming May meeting.
<br>
<br>
The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range
of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including
all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society,
if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations,
it is better that they go to the CSTD first.
<br>
<br>
Does anyone think we should make a statement on this?
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Jeremy Malcolm
<br>
Project Coordinator
<br>
Consumers International
<br>
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
<br>
<br>
CI is 50
<br>
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement
in 2010.
<br>
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
consumer rights around the world.
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/50></a>
<br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765></a>
. Don't print this email unless necessary.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________
<br>
<br>
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up
now. <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969"><https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969></a>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>