[governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17

Thu Dec 23 15:08:33 EST 2010

Hi Avri,

Granted you did not say without Governments.

However, I believe that a separation of IGF from UN GA will work against
governments involvement. I agree that IGF and the UN can work together
without the painful rebirths, but I don't see the GA giving a general
blessing no limited in time or disassociating itself from the IGF.

Best,

Miguel

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I never said without governments.  As you will notice, I have every
> intention that governments should be full and equal partners.  What I hope
> is that a global open dialogue on IG should be such that in 2015 its
> existence did not depend on the UN-GA giving it permission to exist, but
> that it would exist on its own without needing its initiator's blessing for
> another painful rebirth.  This round has shown us that no matter how much
> the IGF or any other process achieves during its 5 years, the need to come
> back to the UN-GA for continued existence means a chance for those who
> despise it and those who want to eliminate all traces of multistakeholder
> governance to diminish its value.  Also we spent nearly 2 years on the
> process question 'will they let us be' being the main issue under
> discussion, limiting the amount of forward progress that might have been
> achieved on the substantive issues.
>
> I am hoping that within five years that particular door can be closed.
>
> a.
>
>
> On 23 Dec 2010, at 13:50, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>
> > Dear all:
> >
> > I support Marilia views.
> >
> > On Avri's ideal of continuing IGF beyond 2015 without the need to pass by
> the UN GA, although I understand where she is coming, let´s not forget that
> the UN with all its defects, its the only global organization available. And
> as usual, the national and the regional levels are where the real work takes
> place. As a consequence, I think it is necessary to keep struggling/working
> in a multistakeholder way, including everybody, even governments. :-)
> >
> > On Ayesha suggestion on real time transcription, it has been a request
> long time made by different people (including Gov. rep) to the CSTD
> secretariat. All people/entities interested should keep the pressure on this
> to the CSTD Secretariat.
> >
> > Finally, I believe a way should be found to amend the rules of procedure
> of the CSTD to insert the multistakeholderism agreed on ECOSOC Res. 2006/46.
> For this, it is necessary to take into account that the current rules of
> procedure apply to various functional commissions of ECOSOC, but CSTD is the
> only one which in the WSIS outcome documents and in its redefined mandate
> resolution, was explicitly requested to use it.
> >
> > Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all.
> >
> > Miguel
> >
> > Annex
> >
> > Some selected text from the ECOSOC 2006/46 resolution (emphasis mine):
> >
> > Mandate
> > 4. Decides that, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions 57/270 B
> and 60/252, the Commission shall effectively assist the Economic and Social
> Council as the focal point in the system-wide follow-up, in particular the
> re view and assessment of progress made in implementing the outcomes of the
> Summit, while at the same time maintaining its original mandate on science
> and technology for development, also taking into account the provisions of
> paragraph 60 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome;5
> >
> > 5. Agrees that the system-wide follow-up shall have a strong development
> orientation;
> >
> > 6. Decides that, in the exercise of its responsibility as defined in
> paragraph 4 above, the Commission sh all review and assess progress made in
> implementing the outcomes of the Summit and advise the Council thereon,
> including through the elaboration of recommendations to the Council aimed at
> furthering the implementation of the Summit outcomes, and that to th at end,
> the Commission shall:
> > (a ) Review and assess progress at the international and regional levels
> in the implementation of action lines, recommendations and commitments
> contained in the outcome documents of the Summit;
> > (b ) Share best and effective practices and lessons learned and identify
> obstacles and constraints encountered, actions and initiatives to overcome
> them and important measures for further implementation
> > of the Summit outcomes;
> > (c) Promote dialogue and foster partnerships, in coordination with other
> appropriate United Nations funds, programmes and specialized agencies, to
> contribute to the attainment of the Summit objectives and the implementation
> of its outcomes and to use information and communication technologies for
> development and the achievement of internationally agreed development goals,
> with the participation of Governments, the private sector, civil society,
> the United Nations and other international organizations in accordance with
> their different roles and responsibilities;
> >
> > Working methods
> > 11. Recommends that the Commission provide for Governments, the private
> sector, civil society, the United Nations and other international
> organizations to participate effectively in its work and contribute, within
> their areas of competence, to its deliberations;
> >
> > 13. Decides also that, in addition to its traditional working practices,
> the Commission will continue to explore development - friendly and
> innovative uses of electron ic media, drawing upon existing online databases
> on best practices, partnership projects and initiatives, as well as other
> collaborative electronic platforms, which would allow all stakeholders to
> contribute to follow-up efforts, share information, learn from the
> experience of others and explore opportunities for partnerships;
> >
> > Multi -stakeholder approach
> > 14. Decides further that, while using the multi-stakeholder approach
> effectively, the intergovernmental nature of the Commission should be
> preserved;
> >
> > ****
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > I agree with Avri´s picture of "an open dialogue on internet
> governance" and
> > > I also think it would not be strategically interesting to have such a
> > > prominent focus on IGF, when our worries are actually wider.
> > >
> > > I also agree with Izumi´s evaluation that a loose and informal
> coordination
> > > would be better, at least for now.
> > >
> > > Ayesha made very important suggestions (high quality real time
> transcription
> > > and webcast) that I believe should be reinforced in all our
> communications
> > > with CSTD. This is crucial if we want to involve a larger group of
> people on
> > > this discussion.
> > >
> > > Marília
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Roland Perry
> > > <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> In message <51F18FFA-253C-48E0-8FFA-F985049D20FD at acm.org>, at
> 10:35:20 on
> > >> Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> writes
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Then if we select 5, whether we will join ICC for private sector
> > >>>> WG members and ISOC for Tech/Academic community and
> > >>>> present 15 (if not IGOs), will be an important strategic decision
> > >>>> worth to discuss on this list. This is, what I call "function"
> first.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is it: Intergovernmental Governmental Organizations  or International
> > >>> Organizations.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have heard both used.
> > >>
> > >> And even if it says IO, is that really a traditional home for the
> private
> > >> sector or technical community organisations such as ICANN, and IETF.
> > >>
> > >>> The reason i am curious is that IGO pretty much already have an open
> pass
> > >>> to anything the UN does, as I understand it, so I am not sure why
> > >>> thee would be a specific IGO group.  Also even if there were, I do
> not
> > >>> understand why it would be in the non-governemental half of the
> group.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162010inf1_enfrsp.pdf
> > >>
> > >> ...is a recent attendee list from CSTD, and they have a category for
> > >> Intergovernmental Organisation, separate from "United Nations"
> > >> (organisations). And finally a category of "Specialised Agency".
> > >>
> > >> All of those are separate from actual government reps (categorised by
> UN
> > >> region for the purposes of this WG), so would at least have to find
> some
> > >> home as a distinct "5" I'd have thought.
> > >>
> > >> Bringing up the rear are NGOs, CS and business, and "Resource
> persons".
> > >> --
> > >> Roland Perry
> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > >> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> > > FGV Direito Rio
> > >
> > > Center for Technology and Society
> > > Getulio Vargas Foundation
> > > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> > >
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101223/ef7ecb8e/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