[bestbits] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation - input on mechanisms required

[joy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi all - just a note to hopefully assist with answering your questions
(I am co-chair of the correspondence group and assisting Phil with this
task).
Marilia: The TOR of this are available here:
http://unctad.org/en/pages/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingid=396 - in
particular:
5. The Correspondence Group will:
(a) Review the identified international public policy issues pertaining
to the Internet in the
spreadsheet that has been developed in the second meeting of the WGEC.
(NB) Additional issues may be added to the identified public policy
issues if agreed by the WGEC.
(b) List where there are existing international mechanisms addressing
the issues in the list
(c) Identify the status of mechanisms, if any, whether they are
addressing the issues
(d) Attempt to identify the gaps in order to ascertain what type of
recommendations may be
required to be drafted by the WGEC.
6. Any issue that cannot reach consensus in the Correspondence Group
will be referred to the
Working Group, with the options that represent the range of opinions
expressed in the
Correspondence Group. The final decision on such issues will be made by
the WGEC.
7. This Correspondence Group does not replace the WGEC and will not take
any decision pertaining to the mandate of WGEC.

As you can see - the term "mechanisms" came from the TOR itself, which
were agreed by the working group last November.

Jeremy - in relation to "gaps" - the intention was for this will be the
next step in the exercise (item (d)) once the initial steps (a) - (c)
have been completed. But by all means, if you consider that there are
gaps and wish to highlight these now, please do so.
I will also respond on the mailing list of the correspondence working group.

Kind regards

Joy Liddicoat

On 10/01/2014 4:53 p.m., Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 10/01/14 06:44, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> Thank you for the information and for seeking input from this broader
group.
>> I have not followed the work of the WGEC as closely as I would like
to, therefore I have a doubt regarding the framing of this consultation
you brought to our attention. The attached e-mail asks to identify
"mechanisms" (plural, and I read this is fora) where enhanced
cooperation exists.
>
> You're right that this is incongruous, however Phil only mentions
"enhanced cooperation" in the introductory paragraph of his email, which
I take as an individual form of words from him, rather than as part of
the framing of the task for the correspondence group that the WGEC has
chosen.  Below that - presumably approved by the WGEC - it just talks
about "examples of where some or all stakeholders in their broadest
sense…have engaged in working together".  We should probably couch any
response in terms that makes it clear that we are not necessarily
accepting that the above is an adequate or specific enough definition of
enhanced cooperation.
>
> I also queried on the list as to why there was no scope for the
correspondence group to suggest ways of filling the gaps where enhanced
cooperation is not taking place.  This seems to be a more important
issue.  Why do you need to crowdsource the production of a list of areas
where there are no gaps?  A single expert could do that!  The reason for
a correspondence group, I would have thought, would be to gather
different opinions about the best way of dealing with the areas where
there are gaps.  So I'm a bit worried about where this process is going.
>
> --
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge
hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.
>
> *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly
recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For
instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSz31bAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqrhcIAJCkmZH+KWMA0Emwx9axxu8D
4Y5bs/lP04gl8zOoBWzGEH3D2GhEKeh0KYqVZgVjF53DJbKov43W2YE9PHRW3t+E
zBqX1OFbLkcw4jT0qHJiEG/+2Iv7PMTCrKPU32nYMbOZKX4tTj190xG3dLSPWjbc
CVRxPcUJrr2M5vUfYHPjQQHAMQImkUALtfs1RR3R/xuxs4mINHIZuru3Se5kqHmM
XdiDDDA7TeiFNFHHM3Do+ilSM3/ER2Y5yCnaCz74BWMaV9EqTd7K/QnxFY+nesVA
P6vdLPb0+REc+lNVSqLqt3Gv+lSPNlvy1AXVlOCsR0UzP55R2kxsRDMUjaJ6fUM=
=Lvpt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140110/de11629c/attachment.htm>