<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
My intention was to suggest that para 3 would be entirely replaced by this:<div><br></div><div>Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including <br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs,<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; ">> >> participate in the work of the CSTD.<br style="text-indent: 0in !important; "><br></div><div><br></div><div>Sorry for not being clear,</div><div><br></div><div>Yrjö</div><div><br><br>> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:17:05 -0200<br>> From: ca@cafonso.ca<br>> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre@gmail.com<br>> CC: yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com<br>> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD<br>> <br>> I second Deirdre (I would also remove "very complicated" in the same para).<br>> <br>> Also, I would try to briefly stress how the pluralist approach resulted<br>> in quite successful national and regional IGFs, bringing valuable<br>> contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF.<br>> <br>> A hint on what we would do if Moon does not react and things follow this<br>> absurd path is missing, I think. We respectfully request and do not dare<br>> to mention what would a next step be on our part if we are just kicked<br>> in the butt by the Secre (which is a real possibility)?<br>> <br>> fraternal regards<br>> <br>> --c.a.<br>> <br>> Deirdre Williams wrote:<br>> > Make sure then that para 3 is edited to remove (though never formalised),<br>> > possibly adding a reference to formalisation process.<br>> > Deirdre<br>> > <br>> > <br>> > On 16 February 2010 08:26, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com>wrote:<br>> > <br>> >> Thank you, Jeremy, for the first draft.<br>> >><br>> >> I think than in the 3rd para, we could refer to the relevant decisions by<br>> >> the ECOSOC that actually formalized the participation of other stakeholders<br>> >> in the work of the CSTD, e g.:<br>> >><br>> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including<br>> >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work<br>> >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this<br>> >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder<br>> >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other<br>> >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217<br>> >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs,<br>> >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to<br>> >> participate in the work of the CSTD.<br>> >><br>> >> Best,<br>> >><br>> >> Yrjö<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> ------------------------------<br>> >> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000<br>> >> To: jeremy@ciroap.org; governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>> >> From: email@hakik.org<br>> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases that<br>> >> have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming at WSIS<br>> >> missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those<br>> >> countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in terms of<br>> >> policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out the process<br>> >> of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF sessions and<br>> >> will open the door to continue as such in future.<br>> >><br>> >> Best regards,<br>> >> Hakikur Rahman<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>> >><br>> >> As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations<br>> >> Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the<br>> >> role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and<br>> >> Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the<br>> >> continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the<br>> >> list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and<br>> >> I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air<br>> >> between the US and Europe.<br>> >><br>> >> Dear Sir,<br>> >><br>> >> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique<br>> >> multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus<br>> >> writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of<br>> >> that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on<br>> >> 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will<br>> >> not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for<br>> >> Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of<br>> >> several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation<br>> >> meeting.<br>> >><br>> >> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis<br>> >> Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in<br>> >> particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in<br>> >> contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance<br>> >> of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big<br>> >> step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial<br>> >> work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented<br>> >> in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in<br>> >> December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who<br>> >> accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to<br>> >> the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The<br>> >> launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result<br>> >> of this.<br>> >><br>> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes,<br>> >> including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was<br>> >> to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105).<br>> >> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first<br>> >> (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for<br>> >> granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs,<br>> >> and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In<br>> >> fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak<br>> >> about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing.<br>> >><br>> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC<br>> >> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on<br>> >> the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from<br>> >> this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF.<br>> >><br>> >> In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst<br>> >> ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements<br>> >> which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no<br>> >> right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby)<br>> >> delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC<br>> >> at all.<br>> >><br>> >> In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and<br>> >> transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It<br>> >> would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private<br>> >> sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the<br>> >> opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took<br>> >> three years and ten PrepComs to change this.<br>> >><br>> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your<br>> >> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration<br>> >> at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental<br>> >> stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder<br>> >> institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our<br>> >> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the<br>> >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with<br>> >> an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United<br>> >> Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA).<br>> >><br>> >> Thank you for your consideration.<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,<br>> >> Malaysia<br>> >> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>> >> *CI is 50<br>> >> *Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in<br>> >> 2010.<br>> >> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer<br>> >> rights around the world.<br>> >> * http://www.consumersinternational.org/50*<br>> >><br>> >> Read our email confidentiality notice<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.<br>> >> Don't print this email unless necessary.<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> ____________________________________________________________<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<br>> >><br>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> ------------------------------<br>> >> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up<br>> >> now. <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969><br>> >><br>> >> ____________________________________________________________<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<br>> >><br>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t<br>> >><br>> > <br>> > <br>> > <br>> <br>> -- <br>> <br>> Carlos A. Afonso<br>> CGI.br (www.cgi.br)<br>> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br)<br>> ====================================<br>> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca@cafonso.ca<br>> ====================================<br></div> <br /><hr />Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. <a href='https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969' target='_new'>Get it now.</a></body>
</html>