[governance] New York - EC consultation
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at eff.org
Wed Dec 15 19:35:29 EST 2010
I agree with Marilia. However, I am not sure if this is a developing
countries only problem. It was not an EFF priority to have an ECOSOC
status. While we are recently applying for an ECOSOC status, this status
will only be approved next year. The same applies for the travel funding
for us. Since we are a membership organization, we have strong
restrictions on using core EFF funding for travel expenses. So we also
think 10 times (or more) before we travel to any place. It is indeed to
expensive for a non for profit organization and we need to measure that
with other priorities (and time allocate to a certain issue), etc etc etc
On 12/15/10 4:23 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 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
> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>
> In message
> <AANLkTi=4t6YhD_xvBi6wF8c36wiY79k_ajFrgoin3-b7 at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:4t6YhD_xvBi6wF8c36wiY79k_ajFrgoin3-b7 at mail.gmail.com>>, at
> 03:17:21 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>
> In message
> <AANLkTi=p2CSi6B7FkCqYrKaOq_fpEhT8CyN44SBQp7gT at mail.gmail.com
> <mailto:p2CSi6B7FkCqYrKaOq_fpEhT8CyN44SBQp7gT at mail.gmail.com>
>
> , at 00:43:12 on Thu, 16 Dec 2010, Fouad Bajwa
> <fouadbajwa at gmail.com <mailto: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
> <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
> <mailto:roland at internetpolicyagency.com>> wrote:
>
> In message
> <0+ImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com
> <mailto:0%2BImbzJCiJCNFA73 at internetpolicyagency.com>>,
> at 10:29:22 on Wed,
> 15 Dec 2010, Roland Perry
> <roland at internetpolicyagency.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> <mailto: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
--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)
Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101215/374b3b3a/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list