[governance] RE: enhanced cooperation

[Parminder]

It is of great concern that while Nominet, ISOC and ICC are actively pursued
to comment on enhanced cooperation as per what is described as
multi-stakeholder process of consultation, IGC is cold shouldered even when
it writes a letter requesting inclusion in the process (even if the letter
went after the 2006 process).

I think we need to discuss this challenge to what is considered as
multi-stakeholderism in IG circles...  and who can pass off as civil
society. Takes us back to the 'what is CS' discussions on this list. 

And I speak of not only IGC, but of all and any CS groups. Apparently none
were consulted. Does a consultation with governments and existing IG
institutions like Nominet and ICANN constitute multi-stakeholderism. Or even
by including ISOC, and its IETF group. 

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meryem Marzouki [mailto:marzouki at ras.eu.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2008 9:19 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] RE: enhanced cooperation
> 
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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