<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi All<br>
<br>
I agree that we should call for IGF review to be taken up at CSTD level
onwards, which in any case then goes to the ECOSOC and then to the UN's
general assembly, which as per the TA would make the final resolution
on the issue. We should develop a statement on this issue addressed to
UN Secretary General's offce and of Under Secretary Sha's office. <br>
<br>
I do not see any justification for the the report from formal
consultations with IGF participants not to be shared with CSTD. There
looks to be elements of avoidable intrigue in it. Lets see what happens
since CSTD chairman and some government reps asked for this report to
be tabled with CSTD, which is in charge of WSIS follow-up.<br>
<br>
Separately, it may be pertinent to note in this regard that even
without the UN under-secretary general's report CSTD can make
observation on review of IGF, and on the need of its continuation or
not. <br>
<br>
Two other things come to my mind which connect to the present debate.<br>
<br>
One; it is perhaps ironical that when CSTD was developing its own
mandate on WSIS follow up, developed countries opposed IGF's inclusion
in definition of WSIS follow up that CSTD was to address. It were a few
developing countries and a few CS reps from developing countries who
weighed on the side of including IGF in CSTD's remit, whereby IGF was
included in CSTD's remit of review and follow up. Where would we be at
present if the views of developed countries were accepted at that time?<br>
<br>
The above underscores the need to ensure enough institutional
mechanisms, and institutional depth, around spaces concerned with
public policies. Fouad is very much on the point to relate this issue
to that of continuation or not of MAG, or even of weakening or
strengthening the MAG, which is the second point I wanted to make.<br>
<br>
Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder
space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only
shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they
defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD
review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes
cognizance of it?<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
</font>Fouad Bajwa wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as
well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been
carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature
to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one
incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva.
First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region
to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in
2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks
and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through
the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when
we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the
Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative
(I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of
their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and
stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process
as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity
somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status
to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government
stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country
government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting
in observer status.
Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name
card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the
audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being
officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was
only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to
the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office
for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also
believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed
to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples
and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes
however this may only be my humble observation.
Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again
keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a
definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other
than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete
Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This
wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN
official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental
process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by
ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great
tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war
between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental
political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to
some degree.
Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to
stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise
mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional
specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official
statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in
keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva.
This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were
concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally
feel that If the political management process is lost with the
elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the
process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process
similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU.
Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well
as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel
a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's
existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the
IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation
in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface.
As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very
concerned!
We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am
interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a
humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain
factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in
the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the
Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our
ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG
position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the
stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva?
My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental
process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the
face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>