[governance] RE: enhanced cooperation

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 12 avr. 08 à 16:52, Adam Peake a écrit :

> The only consultation process I remember was Nitin making an open  
> invitation for anyone to contact him. Not sure my memory's right,  
> but I think it was at the end of one of the open consultations last  
> year (May, September?).  He said people should feel free to contact  
> him, and he had a room at the Palais des Nations for a few days and  
> his door was open to anyone.
>
> No idea who he might have spoken to.

This consultation happened happened in 2006, not 2007, since Desai's  
report was sent to the UN SG in late 2006.
This was at the time when inputs on IGF agenda setting were also  
requested.

Actually, I've found through some googling that Nominet (UK) sent its  
contribution to Desai on 27 June 2006. In its letter, Nominet refers  
to Desai's "request that Nominet contribute to your current  
consultation". Which means that contributions has been expressly  
requested by Desai, and that this wasn't a consultation through  
informal corridor's discussion. Nominet's letter at: http:// 
www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/7716_060627_Enhanced_cooperation.pdf

Furthermore, ICC's input on same issues are dated March 2006 (http:// 
www.iccwbo.org/policy/ebitt/id5871/index.html)

During May 2007 open consultation in Geneva (preparing Rio IGF), many  
participants (among them many governments) asked about this. Desai  
answered (http://www.intgovforum.org/May_contributions/ 
IGF-23May07Consultation.txt):
">>CHAIRMAN DESAI:  The --  Are there any others? Okay. Let me begin  
first by a
word on something which is not the subject matter of our discussion.   
And that
is enhanced cooperation.  I had reported to you a little earlier.   
Basically, if
you look at the text of what came out of Tunis, unlike in the case of  
IGF, in
the case of enhanced cooperation, the process was not specified.  It  
was just
said, "Launch a process." Nothing more was said as to what sort of  
process or
what was expected.  There's absolutely no indication given, unlike in  
the case
of IGF, where it's very clear, where there's a whole long paragraph  
specifying
terms of reference.  A lot of things were specified in the case of  
IGF. So,
essentially, what the Secretary-General did was to start a process of
consultation, which we did.  For six months, I personally met with  
people to
find out whether there could be some basis, some common ground which  
could be
found for a process, leaving it very flexible and elastic as to what  
this
process could be. And, essentially, I have sent the report of that to  
the
Secretary-General, the then-Secretary-General.  And the fact is that  
there isn't
that common ground as yet. So I think we'll have to try something  
different, a
different approach.  So let us see. At the moment, the -- as you  
know, there is
a certain state of change in New York, not just in terms of the
Secretary-General, but even the key department which is handling  
this, there
will be a change at the end of June.  So I -- and perhaps that may  
lead to
certain movement beyond that point. But the real difficulty that we  
face there
is the fact that nothing more was said beyond the word "process."   
Unlike in the
case of IGF, where, in a sense, the marching orders are reasonably  
clear.  There
was not that much scope for modification, interpretation, and so on.  
So what we
did was essentially a good offices function.  And as you know, in  
diplomacy, the
best you can do in good offices is provide those good offices.  You  
can't
necessarily assume that they will lead to a successful result. But I  
do accept
that this is an area where we will have to ask ourselves, what do we  
do, at some
point. "

In summary, he said that nothing happened, and that he doesn't see  
what could happen, since he got from his "informal consultation" the  
sense that "there isn't that common ground as yet". Note that he  
provided his report of end 2006 to the former UN SG. And then the new  
UN SG was elected.

Meryem

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance