[governance] RE: enhanced cooperation

Sat Apr 12 13:56:31 EDT 2008

Parminder, all,

Here's my understanding of the situation and of how we should proceed  
as IGC:

What is important is the information contained in your first mail in  
this thread, i.e. that the UN under-SG has found, in March 2008, that  
something should be reported on 'enhanced cooperation', probably in  
view of the next "cluster of WSIS-related events" (13-30 May in  
Geneva: http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/cluster.asp? 
year=2008&month=0&type='alf'&subtype=0).

Since nothing has been done on 'enhanced cooperation' (at least, as  
far as we know from publicly available information), it might have  
been considered a good idea to ask all "IG institutions" to provide  
an "annual performance report". I understand from the letter sent to  
ISOC that, more than a report from ISOC, what is asked for is a  
report from IETF (ICANN and others probably got their own letter).  
i.e. ISOC is not really asked per se, and certainly not asked as a CS  
organization.

I infer from this understanding that the IGC does not need to be  
consulted at this step of gathering "performance reports". We don't  
have anything to report on this, the IGC is not an "IG institution".

Worth noticing: the letter is sent by the UN under-SG, who, according  
to the letter, "In August 2007 was entrusted by the Secretary-General  
to continue the consultation process, especially on the next: steps  
to be taken.". Not Desai anymore, but rather the UN under-SG. "Mr.  
Mr. Sha Zukang became the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for  
Economic and Social Affairs on 1 July, 2007" (http://www.un.org/esa/ 
desa/ousg/#bioSection).

One might suspect that, in line with his comments during May 2007 IGF  
open consultations (see my previous mail), Desai made clear in his  
2006 report to the UN SG that nothing could be expected on the  
'enhanced cooperation' front, in the current state of affairs.  
Quoting him again: "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."  
Apparently, we now start seeing.

What I would suggest now is that IGC coordinators send a letter to  
the UN under-SG (not to Desai), referring to the letter sent to ISOC  
(as it seems to be the only public info we currently have), and  
asking him, basically, what are the new developments on 'enhanced  
cooperation', and what are the plans. We should also ask him to  
publish Desai's report to the UN SG of late 2006, for the sake of  
transparency, accountability, etc. This letter should enclose a copy  
of IGC letter to Desai dated January 2007, and ask what are the CS  
constituencies that were consulted in this process, as you initially  
proposed.

Best,
Meryem

Le 12 avr. 08 à 18:52, Parminder a écrit :

>
>
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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