[governance] New York - EC consultation

Wed Dec 15 19:23:18 EST 2010

Roland,

When I think about the situation of interested people and organizations from
developing countries, I tend to disagree with you. These organizations were
mostly not aware of the IG debate during WSIS, so they have no accreditation
in WSIS or ECOSOC. They have become increasingly aware on the last years
(IGF taking place in different continents helped that), but they certainly
did not have 5 years ask for ECOSOC accreditation. In addition to that, it
takes human resources to map out and understand all the ECOSOC-CSTD-DESA
ecosystem. Many organizations from developing countries are beginging to
grasp all that, now that CSTD and DESA are being mainstreamed in
conversations.

Open consultations are positive, but they tend to give advantage to
stakeholder based in developed countries (Europe, US) where most of the
international organizations are based. Scarce resources in developing
countries make us think twice before crossing an ocean to go to a meeting.
It would be much easier to people from developing countries to attend if
there is a formal invitation, if we can sit on the table and influence the
process. It is too expensive to travel on the promise that maybe your
organization will have the chance to make a statement, if time permits.

Because of that and other reasons, I believe this decision from Dec 6 was
arbitrary, anti-multistakeholder, anti-CS and anti-inclusion of people from
developing countries.

Marilia

On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <AANLkTi=4t6YhD_xvBi6wF8c36wiY79k_ajFrgoin3-b7 at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 03:17:21 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com> writes
>
>  Don't they leave out most of the stakeholders when they say CS with
>> consultative status only?
>>
>
> I think the point is that everyone has had five years "amnesty" to decide
> if they want to apply for consultative status, currently (in some cases for
> longer) including: ICC, APC, IT for Change, Réseaux IP européens [my former
> client] and ISOC.
>
> Of course, there's also been five years to persuade CSTD to allow a wider
> audience on a more permanent basis, for their WGs as well as their main
> sessions. And I think there's been progress here - they are having their
> third genuinely open consultation in a row later this week, even if the
> "drafting the communique" part has become a government-only group. And the
> main sessions last May had several "non-member" panellists invited to speak.
>
> There's two strategies for any stakeholder group to develop - getting a
> proper seat at the table in the medium term, but also getting your opinions
> listened to in the short term. I'm not convinced that the latter is a huge
> obstacle as long as you approach it sensitively, and doing that successfully
> a few times often makes the former much easier.
>
>
>  On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:38 AM, Roland Perry
>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <AANLkTi=p2CSi6B7FkCqYrKaOq_fpEhT8CyN44SBQp7gT at mail.gmail.com
>>>
>>>> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>
>>>>
>>> writes
>>>
>>>> But so far from the consultation webcast, I wasn't able to gather what
>>>> his conclusion of that meeting was.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's no conclusion yet - the deadline for submissions was extended to
>>> 31st December about a month ago.
>>>
>>> A letter sent on the 15th November said "The consultations are expected
>>> to result in a set of ideas, opinions and comments on processes for
>>> pursuing enhanced cooperation... These inputs will be synthesised by the
>>> Secretary-General and submitted as a report to the UN GA 66th session
>>> through ECOSOC".  That's end of 2011.
>>>
>>>  The upcoming consultation in Geneva may have something more substantial
>>>> I guess.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There isn't a timeline for any more meetings on Enhanced Cooperation,
>>> other than the report above may surface at next May's CSTD (14th
>>> Session), for onward submission to ECOSOC and the GA (just like this
>>> year's IGF renewal process, which involved a fight over pre-releasing a
>>> report from the Secretary General based on the UnderSec's famous
>>> consultations in Sharm). Or it might go straight to ECOSOC (in June
>>> usually).
>>>
>>> ps. Might be relevant to point to this document, which I think's still
>>> current:
>>>
>>> "Information for civil society entities that were accredited to WSIS and
>>> are interested in participating in the work of CSTD regarding the follow
>>> up to WSIS"
>>>
>>> <http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=9128&lang=1&intItemI
>>> D=4839>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Roland Perry
>>>> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com<0%2BImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>>,
>>>>> at 10:29:22 on Wed,
>>>>> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> writes
>>>>>
>>>>>  The chair's view was that the ECOSOC resolution, which 'invited' him
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> call the meeting, had defined Enhanced CoOperation and IGF as two
>>>>>> separate
>>>>>> projects ("if you want to change that - pass a new resolution").
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's the relevant part(s) of the resolution:
>>>>>
>>>>> 21.     Recognizes that the Internet Governance related outcomes of
>>>>> WSIS,
>>>>> namely the process towards 'enhanced cooperation' and the convening of
>>>>> the
>>>>> IGF, are to be pursued by the UN Secretary General through two distinct
>>>>> processes and further recognizes that the two processes may be
>>>>> complementary
>>>>> to one another,
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> 24.     Invites the UN Secretary General to convene open and inclusive
>>>>> consultations involving all member states and all other stakeholders to
>>>>> proceed with the process towards the implementation of enhanced
>>>>> cooperation...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Roland Perry
>>>>>
>>>>
> --
> Roland Perry
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101215/50f1f4bd/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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