See some comments below:<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Roland Perry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:roland@internetpolicyagency.com">roland@internetpolicyagency.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">In message<br><div class="im">
>I do not believe that this is the main reason why the deadlines are<br>
>there. The same deadlines apply to the business and technical and<br>
>academic communities, even though they are not required to apply for<br>
>ECOSOC (actually, I do not think they even can, formally speaking).<br>
<br>
</div>RIPE NCC, ICC and ISOC have all achieved ECOSOC consultative status.<br></blockquote><div><br>Thanks for the clarification. I probably missread it somewhere.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
</div>Academic and tech organisations are part of:<br>
<br>
"all non-governmental organizations and civil society entities"<br>
<br>
so civil society hasn't been singled out. </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">And separately, private sector<br>
business has to be WSIS-accredited:<br>
<br>
"business sector entities including the private sector<br>
<div class="im"> accredited to the World Summit on the Information Society"<br>
</div>or:<br>
"Requested the secretariat of the commission to propose to the<br>
council lists of business sector entities including the private<br>
sector not accredited to the World Summit on the Information<br>
Society that express the wish to participate in the work of the<br>
Commission"<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br>Here you are talking about the text of the resolution proposed in May 2010 by
Brazil that aims to bring equal treatment to the 3 non-governmental
stakeholders. <br> I am talking about the arrangement currently under effect, which has been extended until 2015 (see the report of the 14th CSTD meeting, p.12).<br><br>For instance, resolution 2008/218 about the participation of the technical community says, textually:<br>
<br>"Requested the secretariat of the Commission on Science<br>and Technology for Development to submit to the Economic and<br>Social Council for its consideration and approval in a timely manner<br><b>the names of academic entities, including academies of science and<br>
engineering, that had not been accredited to the World Summit on the<br>Information Society and that had expressed or were expressing the<br>wish to participate in the work of the Commission"</b><br><br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
So an exercise to extend that to non-WSIS Civil Society, Academia and<br>
Tech would indeed seem fair. </blockquote><div><br>Non-WSIS Business sector and Academia can already participate in CSTD.
The reason why they are included on the paragraph you quoted above (from May) is because CSTD has not organized "lists" of non-WSIS business and tech who wish to participate. There´s currently no transparency. So the resolution asked the Secretariat to organize lists for the 3 groups.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
>Personally, I do not think ECOSOC accreditation should be required from<br>
>all who wish to participate in IG discussions in CSTD because of the<br>
>unique nature of this regime. Getting ECOSOC accreditation is a very<br>
>cumbersome and difficult procedure, especially for some organizations.<br>
<br>
</div>So is the United Nations! What we are asking for is to be able to creep<br>
inside their tent through a back door. We may feel entitled to ask that,<br>
but should recognise what it is we are asking for.<br></blockquote><div><br>I am not sure I understand your point, so before I reply I would ask for clarification.<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
>I think that we (CS) should know more about what CSTD does.<br>
<br>
</div>That probably means it would be a good idea to attend (and contribute)<br>
in the main sessions all week, rather than just the days when IG is on<br>
the agenda. Something to consider when planning future attendance.<br></blockquote><div><br>All CS organizations that were in CSTD in May attended the meeting all week, not only IGF-related side meetings and drafting group.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div class="im"><br>
>And even if just a few of us do wish to participate, it is wrong that<br>
>this kind of ad hoc unequal arrangement exists, so we should fight to<br>
>change it weather or not we (our organizations) are personally<br>
>interested on CSTD.<br>
<br>
</div>Or align ourselves with an accredited attendee (not necessarily a<br>
government).<br></blockquote><div><br>Ideally, I think we should not have to align with no one to be addmited. If Business and Technical community can ask to participate without WSIS accreditation, CS should be able to do the same.<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
--<br>
<font color="#888888">Roland Perry<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all">Marília<br>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br>