[governance] New York - EC consultation
Roland Perry
roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Thu Dec 16 06:31:23 EST 2010
In message
<AANLkTin9XrdaK7uU5--8fi6uTXS8ChYc-fEfe3cTcuDH at mail.gmail.com>, at
22:23:18 on Wed, 15 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
writes
>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.
You don't have to be WSIS accredited to "upgrade" to ECOSOC
accreditation. Any qualifying organisation can apply. However, I agree
with you that raising awareness of the need to participate is crucial.
It's a shame that fewer, rather than more, organisations have been
involved as the years pass by.
We could see how few people turned up to the meeting in New York
yesterday, and it was similarly very quiet in Geneva at the cluster of
events at the end of November.
>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.
I get the feeling that people thought the IGF was "the answer", and
despite hints from Markus and others, they failed to fully engage with
the CSTD process starting a couple of years ago - when it was apparent
that this would be an important place to make their presence felt.
>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 t
>hat maybe your organization will have the chance to make a statement,
>if time permits.
Knowing how and where you can influence the meetings is indeed
important. But it's also necessary to invest in understanding the
processes, to get the best result.
>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.
The Dec 6th meeting was about the composition of the IGF Improvement
Working group. Whether we agree or not that EC and IGF are the same, the
fact is there are two very different workstreams here, and the NY
meeting yesterday wasn't anything to do with IGF improvement.
>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>,
>>>>> 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
--
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list