[governance] Draft IGC statement at CSTD IGF Consultation Friday

Izumi AIZU iza at anr.org
Thu Dec 16 09:18:05 EST 2010


Thanks Bertrand for your logical observations.

Being a coordinator, I would like to hear more voices, but in the interest
of time and also debate, I will put some of my thoughts here.

2010/12/16 Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>:

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:


>>
> Suggestion to preface the statement with preliminary remarks on this
> specific consultation process, building upon the letter/petition :
> - the process currently followed is not in conformity with the letter and
> spirit of the ECOSOC resolution calling for the creation of the Working
> Group;

Sure. No problem.

> - this group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened by the Chair
> of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice, made in reference to the creation
> of the WGIG to provide as much flexibility as possible in terms of format;
> - the meeting of the representatives of CSTD members on December 6 not only
> was an inappropriate format for deciding the composition of the group, but
> the decision was taken in spite of the strong objection of at least two
> countries, therefore not consensus-based (unlike the ECOSOC resolution)
> - consultations in Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group composed
> like the WGIG, and in any case multi-stakeholder
> - the consultations on the 17 should be about reconsidering the composition
> of the group to make it multi-stakeholder,
> - the IGC considers that any decision on the group format that is not even
> based on consensus among the CSTD member states reduces the legitimacy of
> whatever group is composed

Yes. We already made that clear in our joint statement in essence.

>
>>
>> a) Need for "enhanced"  (not degraded) multistakeholder approach
>> <I plan to put answers to the following questions – you provide,
>> hopefully>
>> - Why multistakeholder so important?
>

>
> Suggestion to suppress this part. This is not about why MS is good; but
> rather why it MUST be the approach because that's what the WSIS principles
> and the ECOSOC resolution say.

The reason I thought it to be added is that many of CSTD community
people, let's say, do not seem to really know about IGF and why WSIS
came to MSH. Most mission people in Geneva, for example, don't think
MSH as given. That is why, in addition to bringing the WSIS principles
all UN member states agreed, I tried to put the benefits of MSH to
make our claim stronger.


>> - What are the specific risks or problems of excluding
>> non-governmental actors in the process
>
> Any outcome of a purely intergovernmental group will therefore lack
> legitimacy and should be considered nil.

Agree. Besides, not only it will lack legitimacy, but it will also lack
the effectiveness and will lead to fail to address or solve the real
issues.


>> 2) Expanding accreditation
>
> Big note of warning here : the IGF and even the WSIS Forum of Action Lines,
> have established an open participation principle, without formal
> accreditation and it has worked without problems. Reestablishing any
> accreditation procedure can hardly be considered as an "improvement" in
> terms of inclusion, transparency and openness.
> This part should therefore be focused on refusing the reintroduction of
> accreditation rules, in view of a general principle of open participation
> and for the reasons described below : WSIS accreditation is outdated
> (Facebook and Twitter could not participate if they wanted to ??) and ECOSOC
> accreditation is irrelevant (participants interested in Internet Governance
> should not require general accreditation to all ECOSOC issues).

OK, I agree, we need to be very careful in addressing these
accreditation/participation
issues on CSTD and EC consultation processes. But I think we all agree that
current practice at CSTD and UN DESA are not open enough for Internet Governance
discussion/consultation.

best,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
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