[bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting?

Thu May 8 16:51:26 EDT 2014

You’ve read my mind, and that of many others; having CSTD to the actual review was part of the original game plan but then the whole NY thing started.

On 8 May 2014, at 18:25, Deborah Brown <deborah at accessnow.org> wrote:

> Hi Nick, all, 
> 
> On the WSIS modalities, I'm not sure the draft Lea shared has the support of either side yet, and it is certainly far from what the G77 has proposed and official G77 statements on the matter. Given the very divergent positions we're seeing "summit-level review is a must" v. some sort of special meeting on the sidelines of the GA after the MDG summit, I'm wondering if we should be prepared for the co-facilitators to conclude that there is no consensus...
> 
> In terms of a plan b, to my knowledge one thing that's been sorely missing in this whole review process is an independent and comprehensive assessment of implementation of the WSIS. Facilitators (ITU/UNESCO) have produced their own reports, but that's not the same as an external (or even grassroots) assessment. The Secretary-General's report also attempts to do this, but IMHO it only scratches the surface. Could a comprehensive, independent, and grassroots review (perhaps by CSTD) be a way forward? I'm not sure this would do anything to break the deadlock over negotiations at the GA, but it could at least give us something productive to work with... Would love to hear others thoughts on this.
> 
> I won't be at CSTD, but would be very grateful for updates from those attending :) Thanks Anne for starting this thread!
> 
> All the best, 
> Deborah 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 7:22 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
> Dear Lea,
> 
> Thanks for such a thoughtful note. On WGEC, I don't have a strong view one way or another - this is one of an increasing number of processes here in Geneva that are getting deadlocked that relate to IG.
> 
> On the WSIS modalities - my understanding is that this is a narrowing of a gap (what you have provided) but it is still not settled. I have to call some friends in NY missions to talk to them.
> 
> Amongst the other problems with a 2-day special event in December is that it is after the MDG summit, rather than before, which could make it rather more difficult to try and align the two processes so the next phase of WSIS follow up actually is more development focussed, which it has not been.
> 
> The other issue is that the draft doesn't really specify that there is any follow-up process outside of CSTD, which could be good: providing that what CSTD proposes to do is structured in a way we all think reasonable. Given that the next CSTD is next week and the GA process is still not settled, how is CSTD to decide upon how the review is to be conducted if it is not sure to be conducting it?
> 
> Hence the need for a Plan B (or even a Plan that is CSTD-centric, which might - or might not - be plan a ;))
> 
> On 8 May 2014, at 12:15, Lea Kaspar <Lea at gp-digital.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Nick, all,
>>  
>> I might come to Geneva for a day on the 14th to see the follow up on the WGEC discussions – the CSTD is to decide whether or not to extend the mandate of the Group.
>>  
>> While the WGEC extension is still up in the air, it is likely that at least the gaps analysis that the WGEC Correspondence Group initiated is taken forward through the CSTD Secretariat. A fact-based gaps analysis is the right way to go IMO and could help bring about a more sober discussion on IG reform. On the WGEC itself, it would be useful to discuss a CS position on a potential extension. Some delegations in favour a continuation see it as a strategy to keep the IG discussions out of the upcoming ITU Plenipotentiary. However, it is unclear to me what value the extension could yield beyond this potential strategic benefit (the current deadlock seems unlikely to be broken even if they have 50 additional meetings). On the other hand, if the Group is discontinued, a number of sticky debates, including the one on roles and responsibilities, will likely spill over into other fora, like the WSIS+10 review process.
>>  
>> Which brings us to the status of the WSIS modalities discussion – Nick, are you saying that there hasn’t been any movement towards consensus on the most recent modalities draft (attached)? At the moment, the modalities in the draft seem to revert back to the 2003/2005 WSIS process. Part of the difficulty in NY is the inability to splinter the G77 and get countries like Brazil to bring lessons and experiences from their national environments (and from for instance NetMundial) to the table instead of automatically siding with the positions pushed for by China and Russia. This makes it difficult to get modalities that are more open and participatory, which we as CS would presumably want. Perhaps one thing to lobby for at the CSTD is to acknowledge the NetMundial outcomes in some way? We have precedent for this in the most recent GA ICT4D Res from December which had the following text: “Welcoming the announcement by Brazil that the country will host the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on Internet Governance, to be held in São Paulo on 23 and 24 April 2014.” Just an idea.
>>  
>> Not really an answer to what a plan B could be, sorry J
>>  
>> I’d be interested to hear what others think.
>>  
>> Best,
>> Lea
>>  
>> From: nashton at consensus.pro [mailto:nashton at consensus.pro] 
>> Sent: 08 May 2014 07:48
>> To: Anne Jellema
>> Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Sonia Jorge
>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] Who is going to CSTD? Civil society pre-meeting?
>>  
>> I will be there, as IDEA (Internet & Digital Ecosystem Alliance), which is an NGO that brings together companies and NGOs, so a bit of a hybrid. I won't be there all day every day, but in and out, though I'll be around all of Wednesday I'm sure.
>>  
>> A question I would pose: given that negotiations in NY on the WSIS review are stuck, what is the proposed plan B if it remains stuck? I've asked various countries this question, and while they acknowledge that we need a 'plan b' there isn't one.
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Nick 
>> Tel: +41 (24) 565 85 00
>> Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44
>> Mobile: +41 79 595 5468
>> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460
>> email: nashton at consensus.pro
>> GTalk: nashtonhart at gmail.com
>> PGP: 6995293D
>> Fingerprint: 9794  3DC C 8F 27 9 BF8  3105  298 1 96 FA F 538  6995  293 D
>> Skype: nashtonhart
>>  
>> “Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything.”  - Plato
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> On 8 May 2014, at 08:38, Anne Jellema <anne at webfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi all
>> Are there any plans for a civil society pre-meeting before, or caucus during, the upcoming CSTD meeting in Geneva?
>> My colleague Sonia will be there and we're keen to coordinate interventions and lobbying.
>> Best
>> Anne
>> 
>>  
>> --
>> Anne Jellema 
>> CEO  
>> +27 061 36 9352 (ZA) 
>> +1 202 684 6885 (US)
>> @afjellema 
>>  
>> World Wide Web Foundation | 1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC, 20005, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation 
>>  
>>  
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>  
>> <Revised draft.pdf>
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Deborah Brown
> Senior Policy Analyst
> Access | accessnow.org
> 
> @deblebrown
> PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140508/24ab0a36/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 670 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140508/24ab0a36/attachment.sig>