[governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Izumi,

*1) The fundamental question *(to be repeated as much as needed)

>From the discussion this morning, the whole discussion boils down to *a very
simple question* : is the intended group a WG of the CSTD or a WG convened
by the Chair of the CSTD ? Because the situation is as follows :

   - In the first case, Iran and others can claim that UN (or at least CSTD)
   rules should apply.
   - In the second case, there is much more flexibility in composing the
   group, as the relevant precedent is the MS WGIG which was convened by the UN
   Secretary General (and was not a UN Group per se).

The answer to this simple question is however *TOTALLY UNAMBIGUOUS*. Both
the ECOSOC and UN GA resolutions say in plain terms :

*"Invites **the Chair of the Commission on Science and Technology for
Development to establish, in an open and inclusive manner, a working
group..."*


This was clearly *part of the deal in May* when the CSTD draft was produced.
Using the mechanism of the Chair as convenor (and not the CSTD itself) and
the formulation "*in an open and inclusive manner*" were voluntary quotes
from the paragraph of the Geneva Declaration of Principles establishing the
WGIG :

*"We ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that ensures
a mechanism for the full and active participation of governments, the
private sector and civil society from both developing and developed
countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international
organizations and forums, to investigate and make proposals for action, as
appropriate, on the governance of Internet by 2005"*


*2) The hypocrisy*

If it was possible, without contravening the UN rules, to establish a
multi-stakeholder WGIG in 2004, even before the principle of
multi-stakeholderism was formally established in Tunis documents, how on
earth can one pretend that this is not possible and contrary to UN rules six
years later ?

Iran and other countries, such as South Africa and China, were active - and
forceful - participants in the May meeting. they cannot pretend they did not
know what the resolution meant - this is why they were so hard to convince.
Nonetheless, they accepted this formulation in the CSTD (by consensus), then
in ECOSOC (by consensus) and then again in the UN GA (by consensus).

For these actors, using the obvious mistake by the Vice-Chair (who let the
formulation "Working Group of the CSTD" become the item title) to retract
now is DISINGENUOUS at best, and in the worst case, just illustrate how
little credit should be given to agreed documents in the UN and to the word
of some governmental representatives.

Actors from CS, the private sector and countries (mostly EU, US and a few
others, including Brazil in some respect) who DO honor their word and
accept, for instance, to participate in the other process (the enhanced
cooperation consultations) they did not initially want are penalized for
their fairness.

*Bottom line* : the question of whether this is a Group of the Chair or a
CSTD Group is *THE* defining question. Must be hammered down until finally
resolved, based on the text. Everything flows from there.

Best

B.



On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 4:14 PM, Drake William <
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote:

> It is all so absurd, we are spending the whole afternoon debating whether
> it's a working group of the CSTD, a working group of the chair, or an
> advisory group to the chair.
>
> Exactly the kind of process one would want making decisions about the IGF.
>
> What's especially amazing is some of the bald faced rhetorical games, like
> governments declaring there was consensus this morning that the chair is now
> departing from, when there clearly was no such consensus.
>
>
>
-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101217/47c6dbea/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