<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";
color:#333333;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body bgcolor=white lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=WordSection1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>Agree that this is a farce. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere,
or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'>--MM<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Courier New";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";
color:windowtext'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Tahoma","sans-serif";color:windowtext'> parminder [mailto:parminder@itforchange.net]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"'>Hi
All<br>
<br>
Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is
supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December.<br>
<br>
However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as
many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC
resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced cooperation' itself as
involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '.<br>
<br>
It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which
is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more
open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less,
within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also
structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they
want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style)<br>
<br>
However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be
allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of
allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the
consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental
stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling
for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open
consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such.<br>
<br>
In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member
states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be
held on....."<br>
<br>
So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all
member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC
resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. <br>
<br>
I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open
consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in
the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate
in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and
forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the
format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they
may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on
board to devise a mutually acceptable format. <br>
<br>
Parminder </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>