<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Dear Thomas,<div><br></div><div>Thank you very much for this report. </div><div><br></div><div>The CSTD Bureau consists of the Chair and four Vice-Chairs. Together, they represent all five UN regions. The present Chair is Switzerland, Vice-Chairs are El Salvador,Ghana,India and Slovakia. </div><div><br></div><div> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4805&lang=1</div><div><br></div><div>So if I understood correctly, what Sha is saying is that if this group puts in a request, the document can/will be made available to the CSTD.</div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Yrjö</div><div><br>> From: toml@communisphere.com<br>> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:41:32 -0400<br>> Subject: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010<br>> <br>> Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were <br>> stripped from my earlier version.<br>> <br>> Internet Governance – IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN <br>> March 30, 2010<br>> <br>> The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN <br>> Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and <br>> Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided.<br>> <br>> Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet <br>> Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of <br>> Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion <br>> arising from his former position as China’s Ambassador to the U.N., and the <br>> controversies about China’s oversight of that nation’s Internet resources, <br>> he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real <br>> interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don’t <br>> care."<br>> <br>> He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations. <br>> I’ll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the <br>> history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold." <br>> After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt, <br>> Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding <br>> statements by Mr. Sha.<br>> <br>> From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] -<br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> How The Review Process Will Unfold<br>> <br>> When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which <br>> time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The <br>> Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its <br>> merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More <br>> precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN <br>> Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the <br>> Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of <br>> its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this <br>> regard." Those five years have now come to an end.<br>> <br>> The formal consultations were initiated by an online process…<br>> <br>> A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for <br>> public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire. <br>> Contributions were received from Governments… Comments were also received <br>> from a number of individuals.<br>> <br>> In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants <br>> during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the <br>> consultation 47 speakers…<br>> <br>> Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due <br>> to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were <br>> submitted after the consultations.<br>> <br>> The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period <br>> from July to December 2009 was thus 118.<br>> <br>> Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and <br>> describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet <br>> governance. They are:<br>> <br>> 1. Governments;<br>> <br>> 2. The private sector;<br>> <br>> 3. Civic society;<br>> <br>> 4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations.<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic <br>> and technical communities within those stakeholder groups…<br>> <br>> Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles <br>> adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to <br>> building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information <br>> Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase, <br>> reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform <br>> for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard.<br>> <br>> What stakeholders have said<br>> <br>> [This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.]<br>> <br>> Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General<br>> <br>> It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the <br>> Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions <br>> expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations.<br>> <br>> Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to <br>> the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of <br>> the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for <br>> development.<br>> <br>> The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the <br>> IGF.<br>> <br>> Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the <br>> Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for <br>> consideration.<br>> <br>> As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were <br>> decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request <br>> that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any <br>> subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the <br>> Secretary-General to the CSTD.<br>> <br>> In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early <br>> this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation <br>> of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD.<br>> <br>> While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the <br>> broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the <br>> implementation of WSIS.<br>> <br>> Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of <br>> ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of <br>> the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General <br>> Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into <br>> the UN’s 6 languages.]<br>> <br>> The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the <br>> Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a <br>> decision by Member States.<br>> <br>> Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations <br>> of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the <br>> Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21 <br>> May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."]<br>> <br>> However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the <br>> documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in <br>> unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will <br>> not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go <br>> through editing, translation and production processes.<br>> <br>> So the issue before us is two-fold – a decision by member states as to <br>> whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted <br>> first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the <br>> recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official <br>> languages.<br>> <br>> At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share <br>> whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if <br>> invited.<br>> <br>> Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about <br>> the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation…<br>> <br>> Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities.<br>> <br>> Yemen – presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See <br>> http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points, <br>> which I paraphrase:<br>> <br>> 1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly <br>> regardless of other fora that might also discuss it.<br>> <br>> 2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years.<br>> <br>> 3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant <br>> public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet <br>> resources…"<br>> <br>> 4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental <br>> bodies.<br>> <br>> 5. LDC’s should be more involved than in the past.<br>> <br>> 6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so <br>> as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements, <br>> mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to <br>> work under the auspices of the UN.<br>> <br>> EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The <br>> CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the <br>> preliminary note’s "could" be circulated status be changed to "will."<br>> <br>> Egypt – They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of <br>> IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support <br>> for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed.<br>> <br>> Sri Lanka – Support continuation of IGF.<br>> <br>> Canada – Supports IGF continuation.<br>> <br>> U.S. – Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs. <br>> Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has <br>> been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes <br>> can be circulated prior to CSTD.<br>> <br>> U.K. – 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated <br>> prior to CSTD.<br>> <br>> Mr. Sha Comment – As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an <br>> English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a <br>> unanimous call for this.<br>> <br>> France – Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting <br>> but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.]<br>> <br>> Norway – Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process <br>> was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He <br>> referred to a SG progress report in 2008.<br>> <br>> Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly:<br>> <br>> 193 members of General Assembly<br>> <br>> 54 members of ECOSOC<br>> <br>> 43 members of CSTD.<br>> <br>> ICC (International Chamber of Commerce – Supports continuation of IGF.<br>> <br>> Mr. Sha – CSTD can be helpful but it can’t supplant the work of the General <br>> Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which <br>> that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also <br>> needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One <br>> objection would probably stop him from releasing it.<br>> <br>> End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010.<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></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>