[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at datos-personales.org
Sun Feb 14 08:36:42 EST 2010
Greetings:
Thanks for sharing your substantial thoughts on this overall process,
Wolfgang/Yrjö. While IGC where discussing its statement, I have asked
the list members to hear your opinions on this specific tension. I
received only one very brief comment on the history and the tensions
of the broader picture. Therefore, I would like to add a call to your
call, that there is a need to share strategics and knowledge between
everyone (old/young generations) and with other stakeholders, if we
want to suceed!
We should write a statement!
On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote:
> Dear list
>
> I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises
> its voice in this case.
>
> My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move
> backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to
> withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to
> get the Internet policy processes back under control of an
> intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental
> stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and
> decision making.
>
> This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the
> Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and
> was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet
> Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental)
> approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in
> their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was
> paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks did
> during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil
> Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed
> over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the
> Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results
> of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch
> of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result
> of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF
> debate because governments were unable to agree on "enhanced
> cooperation" (which in the understanding of many delegates was aimed
> to exclude non-governmental stakeholders).
>
> However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of
> "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in
> 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning
> the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go
> to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that -
> as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word
> "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it
> comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language"
> in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003
> compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for
> international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding
> of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral
> convention" are only governments.
>
> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was
> first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later
> taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of
> Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN
> people in New York they send you to the moon of you raise
> "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global policies.
> No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The so-called
> "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy
> development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the
> archives and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New
> York was ready to draft a resolution with a follow up.
>
> I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people
> the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is
> driven also by the political strategic aim to remove
> "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public
> arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by
> some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the
> secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal
> outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence non-
> governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not
> buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend.
>
> The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also
> hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-
> governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the
> International Association for Media and Communication Research
> (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council
> and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since
> the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written
> statements which are published before the meeting. You can speculate
> how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes several
> hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to
> speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to
> brief (or lobby) delegates.
>
> With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an
> open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental
> stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-
> trading behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time when
> civil society (and private sector) were removed from the room after
> the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real
> debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to
> change this.
>
> This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled
> by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum"
> is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO &
> UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was
> no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU
> Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs
> and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was
> asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism".
>
> During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a
> CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked
> officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental
> mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS
> process - more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only
> remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the
> UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire.
>
> I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG
> leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not
> forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are not
> welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also
> a clear political strategy to find the places where you can make
> your substantial arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your
> role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And
> you have to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and
> private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree
> - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united.
>
> And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet
> Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the
> Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the
> implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025
> strategy.
>
> Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this
> exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also
> for the 2010s.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com]
> Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the
>
>
>
> 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 1599
>
> CI is 50
> Consumers 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 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50
> >
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765
> > . Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign
> up now. <https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list