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

[Izumi AIZU]

First, correction - it was Tunisia and UK to come up with amendments,
not India.

Now, Bertrand,
I largely agree to what you wrote below, or what you wrote
yesterday(?) to my draft.

BUT, it also will be fed to CSTD which will make recommendation
to ECOSOC. I mean the outcome - the WG report.

I don't think they will come up with workable solution soon.
But let's see.

And many thanks for "watching" this live. I really want the
live webcam. And remote participation from you guys directly
to the meeting.

But, given the intense interactions among governments, it is quite
difficult to take the floor. I was quite surprised that IGC was nominated
by the Chair - that has not happened to any other stakeholders.
But your online remarks have been quite helpful for me to compose
what to be said spontaneously.

izumi


2010/12/18 Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>:
> 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")
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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