[governance] informal consultation with EU

[Jacqueline Morris]

Thanks Vittorio

On 9/29/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> On Gio, 29 Settembre 2005 13:00, Izumi AIZU disse:
> > Vittorio suggested to have IGC consultation with EU this afternoon
> > and we approached them.  They are postive, but the only challenge
> > is to find the time slot - 1:30 pm to 3 pm is drafting group, and
> > EU will have meeting with like-minded countries at 3 pm (closed).
> > We may have this consultation after that, say 4 or 4:30.
> >
> > We will report more when this is fixed.
>
> This is now settled ===> from 17:00 to 17:30 in room XI <=== with Martin
> Boyle from the UK (Presidency) delegation. From 17:30 to 18:00 in the same
> place they will meet with the private sector. At 18:00 in the same place
> there will be a (closed) EU Coordination meeting, which means that we
> might want to make sure (by explicitly asking) that some of our requests
> are reported to the member states then.
>
> Now, the first reason why I thought to ask for this meeting was to
> establish us as a player; also, since the EU could become the leader of
> the mediation, it could be very important to get their support on a few
> specific points that we might want to see in the final text.
>
> While we might want to ask for clarifications on the EU proposal (which is
> what the LikeMindedGroup is doing now, before negotiating), I doubt that
> that would be terribly useful, since I would guess that the only thing
> that the EU can say is the text that was agreed yesterday among the member
> states, and nothing more. I think it would rather be better to use the
> time to make some of our points clear and ask the EU to adopt/support them
> if possible.
>
> The first and foremost one, in my opinion, is that we would like to see
> some clear text in the Forum paragraph that ensures us that the forum
> works like the open WGIG consultations, and not like the WSIS PrepCom. Or,
> at least (as a fallback), that CS and PS would be considered as two
> "delegations" that can participate to drafting groups and plenaries on a
> peer basis with the delegation of one country. If this is too detailed, we
> might fall back onto some more generic, but still clear, wording.
>
> In general, the more I read it, the more I like the Canadian proposal (tnx
> Robert for forwarding it). I'm not sure about asking the EU to drop their
> proposed Forum paragraph and support the Canadian one instead, but we
> might consider doing this.
>
> Also, if we want, we might make a more general request that the EU
> formally supports our protest and asks for us to be allowed to participate
> in drafting groups, or at least discusses it; and to try to keep us in the
> loop, or at least regularly ask for reactions. I know many EU delegations
> would support this request, but as I understand until now, as the week
> evolved, it never came so high on the list of their priorities for any of
> them (included mine) to actually raise it in the Coordination meeting.
>
> About oversight, I really doubt that CS/PS can have a real impact on this.
> This will be hardly fought among governments and I doubt they will have
> the willingness and patience to take into account yet more views. In any
> case, we definitely want to restate our views.
>
> Anything else?
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance