[governance] New York - EC consultation
Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Thu Dec 16 02:14:33 EST 2010
Dear Izumi,
Here are some thoughts, I have tried to make it concise as possible. If you
were to read this and think that is still not concise than I would retain
(1),(5) and (6) is for your kind information. (2), (3) and (4), I suppose
are common sense.
*1) **Multistakeholdership is important for countries who have Rule of
Law challenges as it encourages collaboration in the absence of “normal
governance processes” that would ordinarily be afforded to it under the
Constitution;*
*2) **Multistakeholdership is critical as it has a more flattened
structure that is in parallel with the nature of Internet Governance Issues
and Scope;*
*3) **Multistakeholdership increases and strengthens international
relations in a fresh, innovative way that matches the pace of the nature of
Internet Governance;*
*4) **Multistakeholdership provides a new wave of representation and
helps governments at the end of the day bring about cohesion in their
regulatory reforms and policy reforms;*
*5) **Remote Participation is critical and changes the dynamics of
governance and allows countries that have serious resource constraints to
participate.*
*6) **I am happy to talk to the Local ISPs in Fiji to consider
assisting with the remote participation in Fiji.*
*Kind Regards,*
**
*Sala (Fiji)*
**
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear Marilia, Katitza and Sala and all,
>
> I very much echo with what you said. Most Civil society members from both
> developing and developed countries have high hurdle to participate in
> the consultation process on EC or IGF type of "new", emerging, global
> issues
> in UN system. Of course, in general developed parts have less difficulties
> than developing, economically and other factors combined, and we should
> bring these on the table.
>
> So, while I will try to write some IGC statement of sort for Friday's IGF
> consultation meeting, I also very much appreciate if you could write
> your own and send it to the CSTD IGF consultation chair, and/or
> send to me and I can try to read out on behalf of you guys, in addition
> to, maybe, on behalf of IGC per se.
>
> I am not sure if that is accepted as the protocol, but since or if they do
> not prepare remote participation, that itself should also be pointed out
> and requested as we had great remote participation practice at this
> year IGF, we should instead make the case by doing so.
>
> CSTD secretariat is
>
> Mongi Hamdi
> Head of CSTD Secretariat
> UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
> +41-(022)-917 2601
> E-mail: cstdwg-igf at unctad.org
>
> izumi
>
> 2010/12/16 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>:
> > UNESCAP has a Pacific office based in Suva and is a part of ECOSOC.
> There
> > are other international organisations such as the UN and EU who have
> > presence in the Pacific, in Fiji.
> >
> > We have Policy Advisers to various Pacific Island Governments through the
> > SPC, SOPAC (which has been absorbed by SPC), PIFS etc. There is another
> > organisation called the PITA. I wonder though if their views and those
> from
> > civil society in the Pacific were considered and if there was an
> invitation
> > extended to extract the views from Oceania.
> >
> > I agree with Mariela that often scarce resources makes developing
> countries
> > think twice about sending physical representation. ICT will
> revolutionise,
> > without a doubt, participation from Oceania.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Sala T (Fiji)
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com
> >
> > 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> 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
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
> > P.O.Box 17862
> > Suva
> > Fiji Islands
> >
> > Cell: +679 9982851
> > Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
> >
> > "Wisdom is far better than riches."
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>
> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>
> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
> Japan
> * * * * *
> << Writing the Future of the History >>
> www.anr.org
>
--
Salanieta Tudrau Tamanikaiwaimaro
P.O.Box 17862
Suva
Fiji Islands
Cell: +679 9982851
Alternate Email: s.tamanikaiwaimaro at tfl.com.fj
"Wisdom is far better than riches."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101216/ac0fbb18/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