[governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition

[Fouad Bajwa]

The statement is fully supported by myself but it would still be wise
to request Parminder for more thoughts and Miguel to help us with the
language of the statement!


Best

Fouad

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear list,
> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.
>
> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
> for both substance and the tone/style.
>
> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier
>
> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
> wording as much as possible.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> ---------------------
>
> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
> Chairperson
> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>
> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
> Vice Chairperson,
> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>
>
> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,
>
> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.
>
> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will
> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private
> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no
> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if
> the above mentioned is indeed true.
>
> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned,
> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is
> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC
> resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive
> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be
> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to
> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present
> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this
> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the
> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in
> letter and spirit.
>
> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF
> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working
> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method.
>
> As the Chair’s Summary says:
> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character
> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and
> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of
> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.
>
> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was
> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of
> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the
> private sector.
>
> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model
> of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in
> the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive
> manner”
>
> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not
> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil
> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from
> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to
> the continued development and success of building the people-centered
> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles
> including that "The international management of the Internet should be
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> organizations.”
>
> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we
> do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some
> additional time.
>
> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have
> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible
> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole
> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a
> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all
> stakeholders.
>
> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that
> our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear
> that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to
> the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been
> built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful
> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant,
> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this
> crucial time.
>
> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.
>
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t