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

Shahzad Ahmad shahzad at bytesforall.net
Thu Dec 23 15:16:55 EST 2010 

The way it is being done right now, for me, question remains that what value
GA adds to the process? 

 

Those foreign service bureaucrats from all different nations sitting in easy
chairs, taking lead from their allies or leads in larger diplomatic and
global political war games, decide on an issue, which now is a matter of
extreme importance (didn’t want to write bread and butter here) for millions
of people all around the world. 

 

This is frustrating L

 

Shahzad

 

 

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine
Sent: Friday, December 24, 2010 1:09 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: My note on CSTD IGF WG consultation Dec 17

 

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/20101224/20665f3c/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

More information about the Governance mailing list