My opinion -<div>I agree with all those people who are proposing "short and to the point".</div><div>I liked the tone of Parminder's suggestion.</div><div>It seems to me that our stance should be "By some sort of oversight the established procedure has been abruptly jettisoned" </div>
<div>allowing for whatever the UNSG version is of "Good gracious! we must fix that" and no loss of face for anyone. </div><div>Worst case is you get an explanation of why it's happening.</div><div>Got to go and teach Shakespeare</div>
<div>Good luck to all</div><div>Deirdre<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 18 February 2010 10:57, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:isolatedn@gmail.com">isolatedn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><font color="#996633"><font size="2"><font face="verdana,sans-serif"><div>Hello</div><div><br></div><div>As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts of Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful.</div>
<div><br></div><div><font color="#000000" face="arial"><font color="#996633" face="verdana, sans-serif">Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within Jeremy's draft as quoted.</font></font></div>
<div><font color="#000000" face="arial"><font color="#996633" face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></font></div></font></font></font><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"><div>
<br>
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Hi,
Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre.
I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment -
2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...)
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre>Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon.
AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON
Dear Sir,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
I still prefer that we start with<br>
<br>
IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the
recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary General's
report and recommendations on '<font face="Verdana" size="2"><font face="Verdana" size="2"><span style="font-weight:400"> the
desirability of the continuation of the Forum</span></font></font> '
based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm be presented to the CSTD's
annual session in May 2010 before it is considered by the ECOSOC and
then by the UN Assembly. </div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" is good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking this up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN Secretary General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to the CSTD in its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and UN Assembly, as recommended by many Government delegates at the February 2010 Open Consultations." This report by the Secretary General on the 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum' is based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009 held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects the wishes of the participants of the forum. " could be more readable.</div>
<div class="im">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">This will enable widest possible discussion
and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this
very important issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all
issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history
of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the
best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC
and the UN Assembly.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " <span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre">The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of 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. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful."</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre"><br></span></div><div><font face="monospace"><span style="white-space:pre">As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft "In the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and " The Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the work of the CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance of a well drafted diplomatic statement.</span></font></div>
<div class="im">
<div><span style="font-family:monospace;white-space:pre"><br></span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
We further agree with the statements made by some government
representatives</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote what they said. </div><div class="im"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be
no logic to short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues
concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past. </div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>It does not clearly convey that <span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;border-collapse:collapse">the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "<span style="color:rgb(68, 68, 68)">not our intention to submit the report to the <span>CSTD</span>". We may have to say it here.</span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;border-collapse:collapse"><span style="color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"><br></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;border-collapse:collapse"><span style="color:rgb(68, 68, 68)">Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: "<span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:monospace;font-size:small;white-space:pre"> 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."</span></span></span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;border-collapse:collapse"><span style="color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:monospace;font-size:small;white-space:pre"><br>
</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;border-collapse:collapse"><span style="color:rgb(68, 68, 68)"><span style="border-collapse:separate;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:monospace;font-size:small;white-space:pre">So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, for better impact.</span></span></span></div>
<div><br></div><font color="#888888"><div>Sivasubramanian Muthusamy</div></font><div class="im"><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">It is also
very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on
'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC has been
referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which
does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on
</div></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason
why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. <br>
<br>
However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the
CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer it
to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to consider
this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the matter to be
put to CSTD next year since the final decision on continuation of the
IGF will have to be made much earlier.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent
process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be
made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will
help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on
this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda.<br>
<br>
After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the
relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be the
key factor in the present context) .<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past.
In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was 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. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi-
stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this.
The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of 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. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF.
The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. 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.
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. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder 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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br></div><div class="im">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br>
<br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div>