<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage. We could also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate other stakeholders as per WSIS principles, but we should not get in the argument about the ECOSOC.<div><br></div><div>Yrjö<br><br><hr id="stopSpelling">From: william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch<br>Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100<br>CC: jeremy@ciroap.org<br>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; parminder@itforchange.net<br>Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing<br><br>
Hi<div><br><div><div>On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote:</div><div><br></div><div>[snip]</div><br><blockquote>
<div><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">
We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater
multistakeholder (MS) involvement.<br>
<br>
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. <br></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC.</div><div><br></div><div>BD</div><div><blockquote><div><font class="ecxApple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:E4FA1D6F-B4E9-4E15-A61C-55DA1A3B9C83@ciroap.org">
<div>
<div><br></div></div><div>
<div>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.</div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div> <br /><hr />Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. <a href='https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969' target='_new'>Sign up now.</a></body>
</html>