[governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the

Yrjö Länsipuro yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com
Sun Feb 14 04:48:37 EST 2010



Yes, I think there should be a statement.
After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of the process. 
The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the  ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. 
As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last summer) I can confirm  that civil society and private sector representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. 
Yrjö Länsipuro


From: jeremy at ciroap.org
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF



Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision.
UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC.  The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting.
The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS.  So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first.
Does anyone think we should make a statement on this?

-- Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599CI is 50Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.






 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100214/9479199e/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