Yeah... no, ITU involvement in WSIS wasn't an accident. WSIS wouldn't have seen the light of day were it not for the ITU's resolution at the 1998 plenipotentiary conference in Minneapolis (which then led to the related UN General Assembly's resolution in 2001). And as far as the UN system as a whole, ITU is the home and the linchpin of the summit, which is not to say other UN orgs./bodies do not make decisions related to WSIS and its follow-up in terms of their respective responsibilities. It'd be a little bit of stretch to think that because IGF is the summit's most substantial outcome, it exhausts or fulfills the whole of WSIS agenda as per its intergovernmental origins. <div>
<br></div><div>So I agree with Meryem that each one of those arrangements has their specific goal commanding different strategies. Obviously if ITU wants to see the WSIS Forum held at UN-HQ it probably not for the excitement of a visit at "the Big Apple" but more likely because they hope to mobilize UN resources to achieve something, notwithstanding the price of sacrificing a bit of CS participation (in quantity). </div>
<div><br></div><div>Let's also not forget that NYC is the single capital where (due to UN) the largest diplomatic body from across the world is concentrated or converges (sorry, that's not the case for Geneva as some may want to believe). And although we're getting used to "multistakeholderism," the UN's GA -- where those diplomats convene, discuss, negotiate and vote -- is still the ultimate authoritative body to make decisions before anything of a global legitimacy (exit, the security council) is enacted in the name of the UN. So it may also just be that at a critical juncture when important decisions may have to be made by all or a large section of those diplomats about WSIS, it is simple pragmatism to secure their participation and a chance for them to fully understand the issues (now, that may not justify a *permanent* transfer to NYC, see last paragr. below).</div>
<div><br></div><div>CS can still do two things: i) strategize in order to get its inclusively prepared quality input through, wherever a relevant meeting takes place --especially for a crucial one as may be the 2011's WSIS Forum; ii) continuously voice the need to take special/additional measures to facilitate visas for a global CS to the meetings. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Propositions could also be made as a compromise between ITU's current choice and Wolfgang's suggestion: 1. alternate every year between the chosen UN base and other places around the world; 2. rotate around the world with the possibility any year to host it back at UN HQ or in other UN capital if the agenda and schedule of international affairs make the venue potentially favorable to the Forum's order of business; 3. rotate between UN capitals; 4. etcetera.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Mawaki</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Meryem Marzouki <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:meryem@marzouki.info">meryem@marzouki.info</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
Le 7 sept. 10 à 08:25, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang a écrit :<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
ICANN is travelling around the world doing outreach, IGF is travelling around the world doing outreach, why the WSIS Forum, which needs outreach, should stay in traditional places?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Because, and this is obvious, they are of a different nature and they have different objectives.<br>
<br>
- ICANN is a private organization which attendance is mainly corporate business organizations, and has the needed money to bring some CS on board (seatbelt fastened).<br>
<br>
- IGF is still an UFO (institutionally speaking) which raison d'etre is heavily relying on CS (and IGOs). Conversely, CS and IGOs find it the unique place where they may rise their profile in the IG and related fields.<br>
Both ICANN and IGF, in order to justify the necessity of their existence and unicity, *have* to reach out to (or to organize meetings in, at least) different countries [on a side note, who can seriously state that IGF 2009 has changed anything in Egypt re: IG matters?]<br>
<br>
- WSIS Forum is the (recently) institutionalized follow-up to WSIS, which was, if I'm not wrong, a UN intergovernmental process led by the ITU (and this was by no mean an accident, contrarily to what someone said on this list). Since the end of WSIS, well before becoming the "WSIS Forum", it has been struggling for its existence and necessity and for taking over the other two. Now, what it needs is certainly not to travel around the world, but to seat itself as such at the UN headquarters (which is in NYC).<br>
<br>
ICANN showing its own well know problems, and considering the fact that whether it travels around the world or not, this doesn't change the essence of the organization and its decisions, let's talk about IGF and WSIS Forum:<br>
<br>
The former is more inclusive, but is toothless, the latter is likely to mainstream IG issues and make decisions, but is above all an intergovernmental process, in pure UN sense.<br>
CS may be part of both, but probably not showing the same profile (and consequently not the same framing of issues) at each venue. It's not necessarily about the height of this profile, but really about its orientation (susbtance) and its nature (mainly CSOs or mainly individuals).<br>
<br>
In my opinion, there is the strategic choice. Not in counting CS participation from different countries at one venue or the other.<br>
<br>
As regards IGOs, they can survive (in this field) only at IGF.<br>
<br>
Best,<br><font color="#888888">
Meryem</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<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></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>