[governance] CSTD Consultation Meeting Note - Dec 17 [long]

[Izumi AIZU]

Here follows and attached is my Note for the CSTD Consultation Meeting Note -
held in Geneva on Dec 17.

I cannot guarantee the accuracy, but hope it tell you the context and the move.
Please let me know if there should be any modification or correction.

best,

izumi

--------------------------------

CSTD Open Consultation Meeting,
Dec 18 2010, Geneva

*This is an informal note and does not guarantee any accuracy

Note taken by Izumi Aizu  <iza at anr.org>
Co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
www.igcaucus.org


10:05
The Secretariat made a brief report on the decision of December 6 on
the composition of Working Group on the improvement of IGF.
Then the Chair announced that the first 45 minutes or so will be
closed to non-governmental stakeholders – governments need to discuss
by themselves and asked non-governmental members to leave the room.

11:05 –

Philippines
ECOSOC
Participation of all stakeholders are welcome
All stakeholders to provide input – to WG.
But WG be composed by governments

Malaysia
Support Philippines
ECOSOC mandate is clear
WG Members be only governments

India
Support- PH and Malaysia
IGF has been multistakeholder.
Tunis Agenda – they are four stakeholders groups are recognized
Intergovernmental organizations be noticed

South Africa
Support- PH and Malaysia

Russia
Support- PH and Malaysia

Greece
Process is unclear -

Iran
Composition – governments only
We are to abide rules and regulations – benefit from input from all stakeholders
Support Philippines to Russia

Chile
Clarification – know from Iran, what exactly on rules and regulations
of CSTD process?

Iran
I would pass this question to Secretariat for rules of participation
of other stakeholders

Secretariat
Rules and regulations are subject of ECOSOC,
And made additional rules – WSIS accredited entities business, civil
society, academic society - can also participate
In addition – those who were not existing during WSIS, can request
participation of work of CSTD – we will send it ECOSOC for approval

Chair
Selection of stakeholders according to rules is quite clear

ICC
Marilyn Cade
It should be multistakeholder.

EU
ECOSOC resolution: all stakeholders
WG – in open and inclusive manner
With all due respect, subordinate UN body cannot change this
Participation of all stakeholders

Portugal
Success of IGF is due to MSH, not due to governments
How to make improvements without actors
Civil Society, business, academia - they are all important parts of IGF

Tunisia
Head of states – sprit of Tunis – equal participation of all stakeholders
More important
No need to change the rules agreed by head of states in 2005 in Tunis
Multistakeholder spirit and work important

China
Agree with Philippines, Malaysia, India, South Africa and Iran
WG are by governments only

UK
Importance of principles of diversity,
Look at the intention of ECOSOC resolution – clear
All stakeholders’ engagement is important
There’s precedent
Strongly proposes – equally balanced – gov and non government members

Sri Lanka
Support Philippines, India proposal
This is WG of CSTD
Use the interpretation of EU

Mongi – clarification
Participation by observers – allowed the voice of views, but not to
the decisions

Israel
We like to give floor to non-governmental organizations first, then we
reserve the right to make comments.

Cuba
WG be only by member states

Germany
Support UK and Portugal for broad participation of non governmental
stakeholders, on equal numbers, same status, not observers

Finland
Express support UK and Portugal

Egypt
Reading ECOSOC resolution – MSH, inter-governmental nature be preserved
WG has been already established through Chair’s decision this morning
We do have guidelines – ECOSOC 2/2010

Draft Second Committee resolution – gave guidelines on how this process
Para 19 – consideration of improvement of IGF – based on all member
states and other stakeholders

Urge to devote this session to have constructive dialogue

Belgium
Fully support UK, Portugal, Germany, and Finland
In favor of balanced membership of all stakeholders

Mozambique
Feel somehow from clarification by Mongi
Mozambique is not the member of CSTD
My feeling – we speak about MSH, that - all members participate on
equal footing – govs, civil society, academia, IGOs
We would not have parity in terms of numbers, but rights to debate and
participate in decision making process
Let’s follow the procedure
Keep it – but if not that is the case, then let everyone participate
on equal footing

Austria
Balanced participation of all stakeholders with balanced composition
in holistic manner

Pakistan
Support Philippines etc

Slovakia
Support Sri Lanka

Chile
More practical – appeal to your wisdom.
We are seeing two interpretations as main avenues
It is time for you, Chair, to narrow down to get to consensus

EU
No decision on establishment of this group was made.
Partial decision of government group only this morning.
ECOSOC resolution – invitation to CSTD Chair by ECOSOC

Argentina
A few participation of other stakeholders – decision be made by member states.

Greece
Comment on – Egypt and Mozambique
 Governments are observers – same as other stakeholders

Egypt – we were going around circles, but try find the modality to
include other stakeholders in realistic manner
Leaving little time to other stakeholders if they were put at the end.
Find solution.

Israel
Wanted to hear some civil society members who are in the room.
We are here for two hours to sit and do dialogues – member states
talking only – but this is not dialogue. We are establishing working
group.
Open and inclusive.
We need to progress as world progresses.

South Africa
ICC is not government, they took the floor.
So it was not dominated by governments!
<Laughter>
We have resolution. It is clear as EU colleague outlined.
Para 40 – clear –
Going against UN principle
Move forward
We have decided that there is inter-governmental WG
South Africa participated from the day one of IGF. So we don’t want to
hear that governments don’t know what they are talking about.
Equal footing is no in the UN fora, yes, for IGF.

US
Refreshed by the level of discussion
Member states have dominated the conversation until now.
ECOSOC resolution –very important document.
IGF be extended for five years.
 Para 17 – second commission - WG
US to support UK, Chile, Portugal and others – equal footing for other
stakeholders
We are in a unique situation in CSTD – to embrace open manner a
process from WSIS, embodied in Tunis Agenda- five year of success and
extended
So CSTD WG, that has been requested – has unique hybrid condition to work with.
As Egyptian, and South Africa colleague said –
We have to be creative
Bit more boldly into new dimensions.
How CSTD - open fashion WSIS
Real room for imagination and innovation in the modality

India
Moving into circles, but encouraged by SA, and USA.
We have to focus on the substance, not the form.
Innovative and creative thing.
This will not happen until and beyond the form of composition.
Reality – UN rules do not allow non-governmental actors to say – in
this setting.
ECOSOC 2010/226
 Without prejudice to established rules and procedures– to extend
invitation civil society – until 2011
NGOs accredited by ECOSOC – to sit as observers to public meetings
As India, we have supported vibrant multi-stakeholder
But today, we are sitting inside CSTD, UN rules to be applied
WGIG – participation of this group, by members of individual capacity
This will put precedents in serious consequences
The Rules of UN has to be respected

France
France support fully balanced participation of all stakeholders

UNESCO
Highlighted that Internet is an important enabler – to enhance free
flow of information
Strong supporter of IGF,
Important achievements made
Participation – require no accreditation
Non-negotiating nature
Fundamental role of MAG in insuring
UNESCO strongly support to maintain essential achievements
- how to raise interest – in particular, developing countries governments
- all stakeholder – be insured

APC
Endorse what Tunisia said.
This is a short-term group to come up with reports,
Not a decision making body.
WG made up of individuals. Just like WGIG.
Consideration and accountability CSTD has to take into consideration.
 People-centered development

Internet Society

IGC
(Izumi made the following intervention)

Why it should be MSH
My name is Izumi Aizu, I am from Tokyo, am a newly elected
co-coordinator of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus that
has been engaged in WSIS and IGF very actively. I have been involved
with Internet governance since around 1996. I was the local host of
Singapore’s IFWP back in 1998, after attending first one in Washington
DC and the second meeting in Geneva that summer, that essentially led
the creation of ICANN. I participated all the PrepComs of the WSIS I
and WSIS II.

In the beginning, Civil Society and business were not allowed to enter
the room where governments were negotiating. Gradually, we were given
five minutes slot per day for two-week long negotiation. Then some
government representatives started to realize that maybe it’s good
idea to listen to these experts on the IP address and Domain names
systems that government friends have very little clue of the very
subject they are talking about.
We were given more time, more weight, towards the Tunis Agenda, and then IGF.
There is short history of Multistakeholder, with invisible efforts of
many people inside and outside the governments and UN system.

Why multistakeholder so important?
The Tunis Declaration made it very clear that Internet Governance
should be dealt with the full involvement of all stakeholders – and
created IGF, The Forum for Dialogue, not a decision making mechanism.
ECOSOC resolutions also clearly support this multistakeholder
principle.

So making Working Group on the improvement of IGF by giving advantage
to only one stakeholder group over other stakeholder groups is clearly
a violation of the principle that more than 180 head of states agreed
in 2005 and all the resolutions that follow. Civil Society IGC fully
appreciate and support the balanced participation of all stakeholder
proposed by UK and Portugal and other governments and UNESCO.

Now, more specifically
- This Working Group is not a group OF the CSTD, but a group convened
by the Chair of the CSTD; this was a voluntary choice

The consultations in IGF Vilnius and Geneva clearly called for a group
composed like the WGIG, which is written in the Chair’s summary:
 “that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive sprit and
principles of the IGF should continue to guide the composition,
modalities and working methods of the CSTD WG.”
“Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it
was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number
of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society
and the private sector.
A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the
model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
Therefore, the consultations today should be, first and foremost,
about reconsidering the composition of the group to make it
multi-stakeholder.

Because it is what 180 countries solemnly declared should be the
approach regarding Internet Governance. Reverting to a purely
intergovernmental group is a betrayal of the WSIS principles and the
difficult but good faith negotiations that took place in Geneva in
May.

Why we should keep MSH and how to improve it?
It is because of the nature of the Internet. This may sound obvious to
many of you here, but I also notice some new players now under the new
environment with CSTD community here in Geneva. So let me explain a
little more.

Internet being the very new, innovative transnational or global shared
network of networks, is different from the traditional state-based,
inter-national, and hierarchically managed and inter-connected,
telecommunication networks.

The shared, distributed network of networks requires management or
governance in that manner. And that’s why and how IGF is designed and
implemented.

--- end ---

Nominet UK
Martin Boyle
Explaining WGIG
It made recommendations.
Clear parallel to UNSG creating WGIG and CSTD creating WG.

ICANN
Baher Esmat
Echo what has been said in relation to WSIS, necessity to continue the
same spirit in composition for WG.

William Drake
I am an academic, based in Geneva, have spent throughout WSIS and IGF
and was a member of WGIG. Echo with all non-governmental actors:
Focus on operational issues –
Peer-to-peer dialogue at WGIG – gave benefits to governmental members
even they were from governments.
It was the cake.
In a working group – equal footing – built trust and came up with
effective recommendations.

If you make that WG – end-up with very polarized positions between
different actors, not fruitful at the end.
Get them to work to have same kind of constructive collaboration.

Tunisia
I didn’t feel member states against participations of all stakeholders
Para 40 of 2010/11 intergovernmental nature be preserved, but also
para 11, provide governments, civil society and private sector and IGO
– effectively
Equal participation does not mean equal political status.

Brazil
Welcomes the way we found today for way out.
Always respecting UN rules.
Offer – suggestion regarding openness and transparency

1) Fully committed to openness
 Each Chair may invite five speakers in each meeting
 Each stakeholder present- could decide who will be five
representative, in self-organizing way
Balanced participation of developing and developed including those who
were not registered as accredited in ECOSOC
2) Committed to transparency
Any state or stakeholders could attend the meeting

??
agree with India.
All organizations have to work according to rules.

Chair
Adjourn for Lunch
3 pm to re-start, then the Chair will make some propositions for you
to consider.

[LUNCH BREAK]
-----
After Lunch

Chair
Thank you for the fruitful, open and frank discussion this morning.
As chair, I listened carefully.
We commonly agreed that all stakeholders should be inclusive for the WG.
Proposal for consideration:
We have 15 from Stakeholders plus International Organizations.
From 15, 5 from Academic and Technical community, 5 from Civil Society
and 5 from the business group.
The leadership of these organizations will be able to select
representatives to join the member states of WG.

WG is going to be the advisory group to the chair, WG has the limited
duration. WG work be approved or amended by CSTD. Now I invite members
for the contribution and look for consensus.

Philippines
Don’t limit the numbers of stakeholders to participate, but WG be
limited to governments.

Portugal
Need to better understand your proposal. WG – government plus stakeholders?

Chair
Both governments plus stakeholders, with no difference.

Portugal
Then I think it’s a good proposal.

Sri Lanka
Civil society can have the same status as governments?

Malaysia
We echo with Philippines and Sri Lanka. We should not limit number of
stakeholders to participate, and WG be only by governments.

Cuba
Same as Ph, Sri Lanka

Chile
Support this proposal. Members can change the rules of procedure.

US
We think this proposal is most worthy.  Thank the modality, it’s good.
We associate with all who are in favor of this proposal.

India
We must express our surprise to the proposal. In the morning, it was
abundantly clear, putting stakeholders in same footing is not
acceptable and now allowed by current procedure. We don’t think the
procedure can be changed.
5 for Academic and technical community, 5 for civil society and 5 for
private sector. But Tunis Agenda includes governments, civil society
and private sector, and Intergovernmental organizations, where are
they?

Chair – I did mention that.

India
In any case, we align with Malaysia..

Chair – I did include IGOs.

Mozambique
It’s a good proposal.

Iran
We don't accept it.

South Africa
Surprising - this is advisory to Chair - not our understanding. This
is CSTD WG, not comfortable with Chair's proposal. Academic and Civil
society should fall under one stakeholder. We do not accept this
proposal.

Mongi
Academics – ECOSOC adopted
2010/27?
Participation of academic entities on science and technical areas are
approved in addition to Civil Society.

Belgium
Good compromise. We are in favor of limiting the number of stakeholders

Markus Kummer
I want to provide some historical information:

Stakeholder definition came in 2003 in WSIS process.
Added Business and Civil Society, International Organizations and
Inter-governmental organizations.
The Reason: there are organizations running the Internet but not
involved in IGOs in WGIG, in between Geneva and Tunis
New category of stakeholders emerged – academic and technical
community – not fully fallen into other categories, but that’s why
Tunis Agenda included them, but then Diplomats did not want to include
them – so under the Sub-category, but it was clear that they are
separate entity,
Then in IGF, technical community was dealt separately, those managing
the Internet technical operation.
Executive Office – no need to invite IGOs, but “open door” policy, any
IGOs (ITU) and regional ones, OECD – and Arab League all participated.
This arrangement worked well in pragmatic ways.

WSIS Summit gave mandate to UN SG – outside of rules of procedures of
UN, that do not foresee the multistakeholder in the UN
Bill Drake – the success of WGIG was that allowed all stakeholders
sitting in the same room and talked.

Chair
WG is WG of Chair. Let’s go back to ECOSOC
It is to make recommendations – WG of Chair. Recommendations will be
fed to CSTD for approval. We will carry, I will drop “advisory”, but
it is WG of Chair of CSTD. Intergovernmental organization, Civil
Society, business group, Academic and Technical community. We must
agree with four.

Mexico
Thank you.
We support this proposal.

Canada
Still member states have more than 50%, but it’s a good compromise and
we would support.

Argentina
Support your proposal

UK
Support

Brazil
We had lunch in wrong place.  <larugh>
We had to compromise – to combine the respect of UN rules and
participation of stakeholders. I am impressed with some colleagues –
trying to find compromise two days ago. Discussion this afternoon did
not touch other important point, that is the representation of
stakeholders from developing countries. I like to urge colleagues to
have final consensus this afternoon.

Chair
Clarification. Chair’s proposal is to have consensus on the formula,
and then equal representation of developing and developed in any
composition. On UN rules, we have to be innovative to allow
stakeholders and member states.

China
China is of the same opinion of Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Iran
expressed. Just that. Thank you.

Tunisia
Legitimate concern of preserving the UN rules.
Your proposal is fine – needs to be a little bit strengthened by a
kind of Chapeau to guarantee – that this process – there is no equal
status between member states and other stakeholders. So it will say
something like:
“While recognize that other stakeholders are not treated on equal
footing” then add “participation of stakeholders will be on advisory
basis” just to give insurance that there be no equal (political)
status.

Finland
Join the countries in support of the proposal. Echo Canada.

Egypt
We like to stress
1) The issue of improving IGF came from participants of IGF in Egypt in 2009
CSTD – under ECOSOC- by establishing WG
2) Principles of openness and inclusiveness is important
3) Still concerned with the modalities of this group
4) The more we look the numbers, we go again into controversial nature
– turning it into advisory one – we consider it clearly CSTD WG
However, I want to propose a different proposal:
 We better focus on Mandate of IGF in para 72 – the language goes to ECOSOC

- to establish Multistakeholder Task Forces (of three or four)
- each with mandate, come-up with analysis, improve where needed
- in bottom-up approach
- there will be first reading of different reports in open
consultation, then second reading that focus on final editing and
then, submitted to CSTD
- this is to avoid going on status problem of composition

Chair
Egypt – you were not listening to my correction – it is not advisory,
but WG of Chair

India
We share the concern of delegations expressed. In the morning
consensus be developing but we need to come with innovative model of
taking stakeholders but also respect UN rules.
Chair’s proposal put it back into Ground zero – because putting all
stakeholders to
 Welcome to Tunisia and Egypt comments - expressed – unless we can
discuss these models, we cannot reach – for next 2 hours be wasted.
 Surprised at the interpretation of ECOSOC - it is CSTD WG.
Chair tasked the Vice Chair – that current chair wrote – wrote to
establish the CSTD WG, questionnaire calling it as CSTD WG.
Formal process already completed.
Involve the work of WGs, invitees of the Chair, but not performing the
same roles of CSTD members, or put them into observers, or take
Tunisian or Egyptian proposals.

Chair
We are open – I don’t think Chair is going back to zero. When we
returned – I made some proposition – you may agree or disagree with
the Chair. If we have majority that stakeholders be observers – then
we have to call for vote. I invite more comments – for modalities of
all stakeholders, so that we can conclude this meeting

Portugal
Ask Para 18 of Second committee – to invite the Chair of CSTD, but not
CSTD. So what is going here, I don’t understand. Thank you Chair, for
inviting CSTD members, because you didn’t have to – and you can invite
both member states and all other stakeholders – in order to submit to
the CSTD
These are the rules of ECOSOC.

South Africa
To reiterate our position:
We are confused.
On Dec 6, WG was established. The only remaining task is how to engage
other stakeholders.
In the morning, we had agreement. But now we have no agreement.
Back to zero – we agree with India.
We encourage Chair to rethink your proposal.

Chair
Now Madam Chair will rethink the proposal to go forward.
<laugh>
The resolution the Chair of WG to establish in an open and inclusive
manner a Working Group which would compile and seek for inputs for all
member states and other stakeholders - inline with Tunis Agenda.
Are we on consensus on this?

Philippines
This is WG of commission, but not of Chair.
If this is WG of Chair, the Chair can do anything

Chair
Therefore, the WG is of CSTD?
That work is concluded?

EU
Mandate was given by ECOSOC – for the Chair to setup such group.
We don’t have to decide – whether in the framework of CSTD or not…
The only thing which counts is para 30 of ECOSOC resolution

US
We are in interesting phase of conversation. I would disagree – who
said we are drifted from morning. Making formula of practical working
group. It is the CSTD Working Group. I don’t think we will go back.

Chile
Most important is the outcome. The more we restrict, the outcome is
also restricted.
In this case, civil society and different modality – in Tunis agenda –
to have cross-cutting participation – everyone on equal footing.

Greece
On Egypt proposal (?)
22 gov members and other stakeholders will make reports – go
refinement – then go to governmental approval, then goes to CSTD. I
think it was an interesting idea.

Switzerland
Closer to agreement – hopefully. We urge people not to go back to
interpretations of text. My delegation had clearly understood – 100%
copy and paste of text that created WGIG. Go forward with the solution
we have now. We are ready to join. If that does not fly, then we will
join Greece to consider proposal from Egypt

South Africa
Support proposal from Egypt

UK
Tunisian proposal, interesting. Just quote ECOSOC text language –
Chair – to invite members - not go into status, CSTD WG or not.
Chile’s comment – outcome is important.
We should have consolidated MSH framework. If we fragment, we have the risk.
Focused WG, language taking ECOSOC language as Chapeau.

Iran
We can move on – to resolve this issue. Let’s not focus on some
difference, but build on common grounds. That’s how we can move, on
the basis of some proposals.
I agree with what UK said, but with one addition – acceptable to all
of us propose to add: “in conformity of all the rules and regulations
of ECOSOC, these stakeholders are invited”

Austria
I agree that nothing is defined until everything is defined. Second
proposal – Egypt/Greece to discuss

EU
“Pursue the rules and regulations” in French – it leads open to what
is applied, but not violate these rules, or vaguer reference to these
rules

Council of Europe
We have invested considerably to IGF. To have common platform bring
stakeholders in equal footing

IGC (called by Chair, even Izumi did not request for the floor)
Equal amount of frustration should be fine. It’s not there yet – we
want equal number to the governments. Our colleagues were expressing
some frustration, but the Chair’s proposal is in the good direction.
If we cannot reach the consensus them Egypt proposal is interesting.

Chair
I ask Tunisia and UK, and Iran and India to come up with amendments to
my proposal – in15 minutes.
<Short Break>

17:00
Chair
I will invite Tunisia.

Tunisia
It was really a hard task. Ask UK to read the text as they are the
English native.

UK – proposal
Chapeau to Chair’s proposal:
“The Chair of CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without
prejudice to the rules and the procedure of the function of the
commission and the ECOSOC , to establish the Working Group which would
seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and on all of
the stakeholders on improvement of IGF -  in open and inclusive manner
throughout the process, composed the following”

Iran
“Following stakeholders are invited by the Chair of CSTD to
participate in the CSTD Working Group on IGF improvement, in
accordance with the established rules of procedure of the ECOSOC and
the CSTD.

It would be 2 from Private Sector, 2 from Civil Society, 2 from IGOs
and 2 from International Organizations and also we - pursuant to CSTD
decision, it was agreed that maximum possible assistance are extended
to the participation of governments and civil society entities for
participation for balanced participation of the stakeholders in the
working group.”
--
While appreciating the proposal from UK and Tunisia, that cannot be
accepted - since we are establishing the WG which also not follow UN
rules on exceptional basis – we are not in a position on making
decision on exceptional case – we can make exception in CSTD or ECOSOC
rules.

Chile
To Tunisia and UK, it is a good compromise.

Chair – to Iran,
2+2+2+2 is a little limited in numbers.
Proposal is just to say balanced participation from developing and
developed countries

Iran
1 from developing and 1 from developed. Better for more efficiency
with 30, but we can revisit the numbers.

Chair
Thank you. I think 5 from private sector, 5 from civil society, 5 from
IGO, 5 from international organization and consultation should be
continuous – when it’s established. I want the consensus and then move
forward to the Chair

US
Oh really I think we had the great deal for UK/Tunisia and Iran. I am
bit confused where we stand – we want clarification. We still reaffirm
your original proposal of 5 5 5. Why for IGO?  It is not acceptable of
2 from PS and CS

Chair
I think the text is almost same – only difference is number:
 2 2 2 2 2

Canada, still confused – and we like the UK/Tunisia proposal.

Chair
Proposal on the floor is what UK read. My proposal of 5+5+5+ 5 IGO is
still there.

Philippines
Seek for clarification. We can go along with proposal of Iran, but not
with UK/Tunisia.

India
Support the Iranian proposal. Re numbers – there has to be balance
between states and other stakeholders: 3+3+3+3.
We will have difficulty with UK proposal – to allow stakeholders on
equal footing on .
Clarify this is the WG of the Chair, but the report will be that of CSTD

APC
Express concern the numbering proposal, from Iran and India. We fail
to understand how to include developing countries with that numbers. I
do support the Iran proposal to support the developing countries
participation.
Status of WG and output – it appears
Two resolutions in General Assembly and ECOSOC. WG Output is the input
to CSTD, and then make recommendations to CSTD.
Para 18 of second committee reads as:
 Welcomes ECOSOC resolution para 30 to invite Chair –
 <read through>

South Africa
We support proposal by Iran on Chapeau. WG 20+2 – is already
established. We can increase the numbers into 2, but not accept the
language of UK proposal.
There should be the distinction – between government and other
stakeholders and Iran proposal captures

Chair
Go back to 5+5+5 plus IGO
I invite UK to polish up

Chair
I will invite UK to table resolution

“The Chair of the CSTD decides on an exceptional basis and without
prejudice to the rules of the procedure of the function of the
commission and the ECOSOC, to establish the Working Group which would
seek, compile and review inputs from all member states and all of the
stakeholders on improvement of IGF, in open and inclusive manner
throughout the process, composed the following”

Chair
Participation of non-governmental entities, civil society – for development.
At 19 July, ECOSOC calling 2006/42, on 28 July 2008, and resolution of
18 July 2008, in recognizing the need for meaningful participation and
contributions for civil society,
Madam Chair, trying to bring this meeting to consensus – I appeal to
all of us – this morning and afternoon – to build the consensus and
trust – that Chair decide on exceptional basis without prejudice

The Chair of CSTD decides as a proposal:

“The Chair of CSTD invites the following stakeholders on an
exceptional basis without prejudice to the established rules of ECOSOC
– to establish a Working Group which would seek, compile and review
inputs from all member states and all of the stakeholders on
improvement of IGF. 5 from Civil Society, 5 from business, 5 from
technical and academia and International organizations.

Egypt
I am confused with all proposals.

Chair
These will be in addition to governments.

Egypt
Normally, at CSTD, those stakeholders are only allowed when invited by
the Chair to speak? Is this the way?

Chair
Within the established rule of ECOSOC and CSTD.

Egypt
If they are going to work with established rules, then no need to add? 105?

Chair
We have 20+ 2 and 15 plus International organizations

India
I want to request if the proposal be read again.

Chair
Proposals are almost identical – not much difference. We need to
compile two together.

<break again>

18:02
Mic is not working.

India
The language – is revolutionary

EU ?
We still have some doubts on 2nd para?
WG
Only observer? Rules of procedures still bother.

“The chair invites the following stakeholders to join and participate
in the Working Group in accordance with the established rules of
procedures of the ECOSOC and the CSTD who will remain fully engaged
throughout the process,
- 5 business community
- 5 civil society
- 5 technical and academic community
- 5 intergovernmental organizations

Chair
When it comes to the decision making it will be at the hand of
governments – but it still looks hard – this is only for consultation

India
We accept the deletion of language: “to preserve intergovernmental nature”
Participate – is not observer.

Iran
Russia
We can also support this.

Bill Drake
Questions – what would be the incentive for non-governmental actors to
participate – would we participate it at all?

Chile
Needs more paras –
Decision be by consensus, overriding the voting rules of procedures
Make sure that input from other stakeholders will be taken into
account when writing the recommendations contained in the report of
the Working Group.

Swiss
We propose to add “within the practice of CSTD”

APC
Make different suggestion

ICC

IGC (Izumi)
We are worried – are we making any problem to governments?
We have patiently waited for a long time today to speak after
governments taking the floor– we are working together with you.
It is a big departure from IGF conventions. I will have difficulty in
explaining to our colleagues waiting at the other end of the Network.

Chair
I want to appeal – idea of WG is to do wide consultation – with
private sectors – so that they can advice to policy makers.
Suggesting – delete established rules of procedures CSTD and ECOSOC.
Please, we are appealing.

“The decision of this WG is by consensus. It will consider the
contributions of other stakeholders.” Please let it be more flexible.
And then find the mid-way.

UK – add one

Russia
We cannot accept the deletion of “established rules of procedure”

South Africa
Following Russia – Not to delete “rules and procedures”

EU
Consensus – by 22 member states?

Chair - YES

Brazil
Brazil believes in order for compromise – deletion of this phrase be
considered by both sides –
Even if we keep the text, it does not seem great problem to civil society.
Most important – these group – seek, compile, and suggest – clearly
guarantee that different views be expressed. Without prejudice of
expressing all different views within its report.

Chile
My problem is – you don’t express all views – recommendation adopted
by consensus – if you want to add that – you need more details –. The
whole exercises is getting complicated.

India
I agree - Whole exercises is getting complicated. We don’t accept the
deletion of rules of procedures.

Chile
This Group is not going to drafting decisions. Recommendations or
reports are different from drafting decisions.


IGC (Izumi)
There is some harsh restrictions from first para – on other
stakeholders. We appeal the softening the language on imposing
restrictions to CS.

(Some governments saying from the floor – that is the CSTD practice)

Chile
To preserve the last para guaranteeing the diverse views be taken into
the report.

US
This is what we have been over the past five years. They have to have
the voices – they cannot be shuttered down into the WG.

Philippines
We raised the flag earlier – several times but not given the floor.
Issue of second class.  We were not called. I like to state –
according to the rules and procedures of CSTD and ECOSOC

South Africa
Delete – “join and” – “without prejudice”

Canada
On last input – “Input from all stakeholders include all stakeholders
views who are not participating in the WG could also be taken into
consideration.”

EU
If are to continue this direction of creating second class citizens, I
am not going to be able to sell this to EU member states. My mandate
is to give equal status to all stakeholders.  Delete “rules of
procedures”

Mexico
We are here to get compromise. Mexico proposed to delete “rules of
procedures” – and last para.

Iran

Chair summarized the current draft and calling for consensus.

UK
No. Member states only, and restrictions on these guests.

Iran
To UK –

Canada
Explanation – for stakeholders – participate as merely observers
Or equal participants in the WG. To delete that we can convince that
they are equal participants, if we keep that, it’s not easy to
convince the capital.

Mexico
Where is the flexibility that Chair asked for?

Chair –
Proposition –

Last para – the decisions of this WG will be made by the 22 member
states, taking into consideration inputs from all stakeholders
including those who did not participate in the WG.

US
I am really lost –
It’s a testimony for the process – multi-stakeholder of dialogues. We
cannot accept – we join EU, Chile, Canada, Mexico, we must have equal
footing of participation in this setup. Need to see the languages for
that.

(They printed the current proposal of Chair and circulated)

“The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states
plus representatives of the five countries which hosted the IGF
meetings plus the two countries which hosted WSIS. This Working Group
will seek, compile, and review inputs of the Internet Governance
Forum. In an open and inclusive manner throughout the process.

The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively
participate in the Working Group, who will remain fully engaged
throughout the process:
- 5 Business community
- 5 Civil society
- 5 Technical and academic community
- 5 Intergovernmental organizations

Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227 and 2010/228, it
should be extended to ensure the participation of equal representation
of stakeholders from developing countries in the Working Group.

Decisions of this Working Group will be made by the 22 member states,
taking into consideration inputs from all stakeholders, including
those who did not participate in the Working Group.”


UK
On maximum possible assistance should be extended etc.

Brazil
We do not accept the black-box approach

Greece
Replace “in accordance with established rules of procedures” – we
propose to insert “baring in mind the established rules of procedures
(and the practice/guidance) of ECOSOC and CSTD”
Iran –
It may be agreeable
“The work of the group will be governed by the established rules of procedures.”

UK –
No, delete the last para as this is Chapeau

Philippines
As long as we put “in accordance with the rules of procedures”

Greece
This “bearing in mind” is often used in these cases.

Iran
Propose:
“The work of the Working Group will be governed by the established
rules of procedures”

EU
That is not the solution. Not acceptable for larger EU constituencies.
We have the concession – of 22 governments – departure from ECOSOC
para 30 of all stakeholders participate

Chair
Asking again to put “bearing in mind the rules of procedures …”

India
We can accept that – provided that the para –

Chile
We are going around circles. Problems of rules of CSTD and ECOSOC –
They have set of rules of procedures at ECOSOC – but not with CSTD –
participation on the commission is enlarged by ECOSOC decision. So -
it is not accurate –

India
Clarify the current proposal on the table please.

(New printed version was circulated)

“The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively
participate in the Working Group bearing in mind the established rules
of procedures of CSTD, who will remain fully engaged throughout the
process:
- 5 Business community
- 5 Civil society
- 5 Technical and academic community
- 5 intergovernmental organizations

Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227 and 2010/228,
maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas and equal
representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the
Working Group should be ensured.

Decisions of this Working Group will be made by the 22 member states,
taking into consideration inputs from all stakeholders, including
those who did not participate in the Working Group.”

Canada
Is this MSH process? Return the fourth para into original – “by consensus”

No opposition expressed.

Final text agreed:

“The Chair of the CSTD establishes a Working Group of 15 member states
plus the five member states which hosted the IG meetings plus the two
member states which hosted WSIS. This Working Group will seek,
compile, and review inputs from all member states and all other
stakeholders on improvement of the Internet Governance Forum, in an
open and inclusive manner throughout the process.

The Chair invites the following stakeholders to interactively
participate in the Working Group, bearing in mind the established
rules of procedure of the ECOSOC, who will remain fully engaged
throughout the process:
- 5 Business community
- 5 Civil society
- 5 Technical and academic community
- 5 intergovernmental organizations

Pursuant to the ECOSOC decision 2010/226, 2010/227, and 2010/228,
maximum possible assistance, diversity of ideas, and the equal
representation of stakeholders from developing countries in the
Working Group should be ensured in consultation with the stakeholders.

The report of this Working Group will be adopted by consensus.”

END (around 9 pm)
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CSTD WG meeting Dec 17.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 99840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101221/72b256b5/attachment.doc>