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

[Cancio Melia, Jorge]

Let me support Bertrand's words as one of those who negotiated the May CSTD Resolution.

Jorge
--- Enviado desde PDA

________________________________
De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org <governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org <governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Drake William <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
Enviado: Fri Dec 17 16:25:19 2010
Asunto: Re: [governance] Round III - 15 from non-gov stakeholders 5+5+5

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<mailto: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/20101217/1f8ce9be/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