<span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">Hello everyone,<br><br></span><span style="" title="">Congrats anyway to all of you and Izumi mainly because we are very well informed of the progress of all its activities.<br>
</span></span><span id="result_box" class="" lang="en"><span style="" title="">Predictably. </span><span style="" title="">We could not succeed on all lines but our voice has been expected.<br><br><br clear="all"></span></span>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN<br>
*COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC)<br> ACADEMIE DES TIC<br>*COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC<br>*MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE<br>*NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN)<br> <br>Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243811980914<br>
email: <a href="mailto:b.schombe@gmail.com" target="_blank">b.schombe@gmail.com</a><br>blog: <a href="http://akimambo.unblog.fr/" target="_blank">http://akimambo.unblog.fr</a><br> <br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/11/24 Izumi AIZU <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:iza@anr.org">iza@anr.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I asked the person involved with the negotiation at UN<br>
if I can share the following annotated observation, and I<br>
got the positive reply.<br>
<br>
The draft text is in the "silent" status until the final discussion,<br>
not supposed to be disclosed, but it's already leaked.<br>
<br>
izumi<br>
<br>
-------------<br>
<br>
This text taken as a whole is a fairly satisfactory result:<br>
IGF renewal without any major changes. In the to-ing and fro-ing of the<br>
last three weeks'<br>
informal negotiations in New York, we didn't get every change to the<br>
G77 draft that we<br>
wanted. In particular, I think it is good that the text:<br>
<br>
- recognises the "importance of the IGF and its mandate as a<br>
multi-stakeholder dialogue.....<br>
in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability<br>
and development of the Internet" ;<br>
<br>
- states that the enhanced cooperation and IGF tracks of WSIS "may be<br>
complementary";<br>
<br>
- states that the Sharm consultation "generally welcomed" renewal of the<br>
IGF mandate: this is more accurate and positive language than that of<br>
the SG report;<br>
<br>
- renews the mandate for 5 years according to the TA72 mandate, i.e.<br>
without any change<br>
and not contingent on CSTD WG recommendations on improving the IGF: so<br>
our core objective has been met;<br>
<br>
- advocates support for developing country "enhanced participation",<br>
thereby advocating t he relevance of the IGF and its preparatory<br>
meetings to the interests of developing countries - and helps our<br>
message that "the IGF is for you: so make use of it" ;<br>
<br>
- does not seek radically to restructure or re-organise the IGF;<br>
<br>
- in particular does not create a new traditional UN bureau to run it<br>
and there are no references at all to such radical options, despite<br>
China tabling such language;<br>
<br>
- maintains voluntary funding principle for the Secretariat (though<br>
there may be more options) ;<br>
<br>
- underscores the ECOSOC decision to set up a CSTD working group on<br>
improvements which involves all stakeholders, to report mid-2011;<br>
<br>
- stresses the need for national public policy process to include<br>
multi-stakeholder approaches;<br>
<br>
- generally promotes national, regional and international<br>
multi-stakeholder partnerships which help institutionalise the IGF model<br>
at all layers.<br>
<br>
One other item that is worth mentioning: there was an attempt throughout<br>
the negotiations to create a new reporting track, calling for the<br>
Secretary General in the context of reporting on the progress made<br>
towards ICT for Development to focus on progress in the "improvement" of<br>
the IGF. This ran the risk of turning the ICT for Development Resolution<br>
into an annual IGF resolution. We succeeded in countering that proposal<br>
so that there is no specific reference in the text to 2nd Committee<br>
reporting on the IGF.<br>
<br>
However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were<br>
secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is<br>
regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of<br>
the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for<br>
improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original<br>
text), "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement<br>
of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF<br>
improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process<br>
modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These<br>
several references to improvements in the text could for those with no<br>
direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something<br>
needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is<br>
clearly not the case.<br>
<br>
The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly<br>
disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no<br>
comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly<br>
criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the<br>
opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and<br>
achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.<br>
<br>
We undertook a round of briefings of G77 missions at the UN before<br>
the 2nd Committee met - including the G77 drafters and the lead for the<br>
Least Developed Countries - to ensure they understood fully what the IGF<br>
is, the strong level of support of stakeholders from all regions<br>
including developing countries, its track record and successes, its open<br>
preparatory consultation processes and how the IGF has evolved and<br>
self-improved over the 5 years since the WSIS. These were also key<br>
messages at the ICC/ISOC briefing on 21 October.<br>
<br>
END<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>