Hi Renate,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for the input. Good to see you're still following the list. Four points : </div><div><br></div><div>1) Wolfgang is right in saying that people who got involved in these topics since 2006 tend to take the IGF format for granted, forgetting that it is a radical innovation in the UN system and still a fragile experiment to implement the new concept of "multi-stakeholder governance". It is not about having "war veterans of the WSIS" rehashing how the world used to be and the battles they have fought. It is about a pragmatic assessment of where this all comes from and how to preserve the delicate balance achieved so far. </div>
<div><br></div><div>2) Renate said something very important : </div><blockquote class="webkit-indent-blockquote" style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><i>"BTW, if you have ECOSOC status, you can also speak, lobby<br>
and circulate language at ECOSOC Substantive Session in July."</i></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It would be useful for people on this list to address what can be done at the ECOSOC level in July, irrespective of what happens with/at the CSTD in May.</div>
<div><br></div><div>3) Generally speaking, the list should probably not rush towards drafting another statement on this important thread that Wolfgang has launched. This is about strategic discussion at that stage. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Be conscious that this list is actually one of the tools for participation of civil society in this discussion on the future of multi-stakeholderism. I can tell you that several government representatives are following the discussions on this list with great interest, even if they do not speak. A structured and substantive discussion here on these strategic issues can help reveal the main arguments for the future debates among governments. </div>
<div><br></div><div>4) Bill is right about the importance of IGF secretariat location. As Renate indicates, there is a strong tradition of NGO interaction with IGOs in Geneva, that is not present in New York where everything is not only too often handled in outdated political divisions (developed vs developing countries) but also overshadowed by all other international issues (security, poverty, etc...).</div>
<div><br></div><div>The Geneva location of the Secretariat of the IGF is also an important element to facilitate interaction with several europe-based international organizations that are directly involved in the WSIS-related issues : ITU, WIPO, UNCTAD, but also UNESCO, OECD, Council of Europe, even Interpol. a New york base makes it more difficult. In terms of functioning of the Secretariat, it makes it easier for the Executive Secretary to travel to various places of the world and to reach interlocutors via telephone (given the time differences, more than 100 countries can be reached from Geneva in +/- 5 hours vs less than 40 from New York). </div>
<div><br></div><div>It also makes it relatively easier for people to participate in consultations : visa issues, travel arrangements (airline paths) for the african and middle east countries, and presence of national delegations who are more familiar with technical questions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Finally, isn't it strange to see the very governments who complain that Internet Governance is dominated by the United States pushing for the IGF to be more managed by and from a New-York based structure ? Of course the UN in New York is not the US per se, but moving the IGF Secretariat to New York would surely be symbolically strange. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Bertrand</div><div><br></div><div> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/2/14 Renate Bloem (Gmail) <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:renate.bloem@gmail.com">renate.bloem@gmail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Dear Wolfgang and list members,<br>
<br>
As one who in the last two years has only observed this list from far, but<br>
has been involved and battled for civil society since day one in the WSIS<br>
and its outcomes, allow me to make a few observations:<br>
<br>
First: I do agree with Wolfgang that the "multistakeholderism" was the<br>
biggest conceptual achievement from WSIS. This was largely due to the<br>
extraordinary expertise that "stakeholders" other than governments brought<br>
into the process. It is also true, that there are trends to move us backward<br>
again, now that some of these governments have developed their own<br>
expertise.<br>
<br>
Second: Yes, there are different "spirits" in Geneva and New York. There is<br>
more openness in Geneva due to a long process of clear UN/NGO consultative<br>
arrangements, which NGOs have used to their utmost advantage. For example we<br>
have moved today from observers to "stakeholders" in the Human Rights<br>
Council, a direct subsidiary of the General Assembly (same level as the<br>
Security Council) to which in general we have no institutional arrangements<br>
(with speaking rights, interactive dialogue, written statements, official<br>
panel participation and, depending on governments, to negotiations of<br>
resolutions)But we also still complain of not getting enough time.<br>
<br>
In New York, NGOs have developed their own arrangements, e.g. the so called<br>
"Arias Consultations" with the Security Council or "Hearings" with the<br>
General Assembly. NGOs there also are often much more concerned about the<br>
role of the private sector than that of governments.<br>
<br>
Third, and what I want to say is: before taken next steps (and I do agree<br>
you should and write a statement in favour of the CSTD) to have a good look<br>
at some analysis writings of why the Cardoso report failed, e.g. here<br>
<a href="http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22031890/The-Cardoso-Repo
rt-on-the-UN-and-Civil-Society-Functionalism-Global-Corporatism-or-Global-De" target="_blank">http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22031890/The-Cardoso-Repo<br>
rt-on-the-UN-and-Civil-Society-Functionalism-Global-Corporatism-or-Global-De</a><br>
mocracy. When I used the term NGO, I mean, as in the article, all of civil<br>
society.<br>
<br>
Fourth and last: In rushing through the verbatim of last week's<br>
consultation, I also suggest to take up Finland's remarks about CSTD's role<br>
in negotiating the resolution on WSIS follow up for ECOSOC, also follow<br>
George Papadatos whether ECOSOC Bureau has already discussed this issue and<br>
under which item. BTW, if you have ECOSOC status, you can also speak, lobby<br>
and circulate language at ECOSOC Substantive Session in July.<br>
<br>
All the best,<br>
<br>
Renate<br>
-------<br>
<br>
Renate Bloem<br>
Past President of CONGO<br>
Civicus UN Geneva<br>
Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16<br>
Mobile : +41763462310<br>
<a href="mailto:renate.bloem@civicus.org">renate.bloem@civicus.org</a><br>
<a href="mailto:renate.bloem@gmail.com">renate.bloem@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation<br>
PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa<br>
<a href="http://www.civicus.org" target="_blank">www.civicus.org</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"<br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de">wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de</a>]<br>
Sent: dimanche, 14. février 2010 12:05<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Yrjö Länsipuro; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III<br>
<br>
Dear list<br>
<br>
I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its<br>
voice in this case.<br>
<br>
My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to<br>
cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the<br>
principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy<br>
processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence<br>
non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues<br>
and decision making.<br>
<br>
This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" 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 soceity 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 CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the<br>
WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and<br>
handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the<br>
Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the<br>
UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a<br>
"multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as<br>
the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were<br>
unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of<br>
many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders).<br>
<br>
However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing<br>
power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007<br>
where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of<br>
non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of<br>
these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese<br>
delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term<br>
"multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a<br>
"used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva<br>
2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for<br>
international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of<br>
"multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral<br>
convention" are only governments.<br>
<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 (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not<br>
the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you<br>
to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop<br>
global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The<br>
so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy<br>
development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives<br>
and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to<br>
draft a resolution with a follow up.<br>
<br>
I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the<br>
planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also<br>
by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the<br>
Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and<br>
unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget<br>
security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher<br>
efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to<br>
silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do<br>
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<br>
"recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental<br>
stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International<br>
Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an<br>
elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is<br>
officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can<br>
do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You<br>
can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes<br>
several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to<br>
speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or<br>
lobby) delegates.<br>
<br>
With 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>
re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors.<br>
It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were<br>
removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions<br>
ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten<br>
PrepComs to change this.<br>
<br>
This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the<br>
planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three<br>
intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent<br>
preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on<br>
the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs<br>
relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU<br>
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<br>
Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially<br>
to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which<br>
emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less<br>
disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of<br>
"multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under<br>
fire.<br>
<br>
I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and<br>
activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger<br>
political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need<br>
beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to<br>
find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have<br>
permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND<br>
macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly<br>
governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a<br>
certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay<br>
united.<br>
<br>
And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet Governance.<br>
There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society<br>
(WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and<br>
to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy.<br>
<br>
Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting times<br>
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 [mailto:<a href="mailto:yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com">yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com</a>]<br>
Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48<br>
An: <a 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<br>
was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were<br>
immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as<br>
well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD<br>
would be cut out of the process.<br>
<br>
<br>
The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the<br>
implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC,<br>
and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the ECOSOC<br>
resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance<br>
of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on<br>
the question of the continuation of the IGF.<br>
<br>
<br>
As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last<br>
summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector representatives<br>
have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the<br>
CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened<br>
CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it,<br>
rather than just observing.<br>
<br>
<br>
Yrjö Länsipuro<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
<br>
From: <a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a><br>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500<br>
To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the<br>
continuation of the IGF<br>
<br>
Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently<br>
read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD<br>
over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of<br>
the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it<br>
to make a final decision.<br>
<br>
UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the<br>
Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to<br>
ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought<br>
that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its<br>
upcoming May meeting.<br>
<br>
The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of<br>
civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those<br>
entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to<br>
give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that<br>
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,<br>
Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
<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>
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a><br>
<<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a>><br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice<br>
<<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&
int1stParentNodeID=89765" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&<br>
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.<br>
<<a href="https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969" target="_blank">https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969</a>><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>
</div></div>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t=" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t=</a><br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><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></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society<br>Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs<br>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</div>