[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Sun Feb 14 09:04:18 EST 2010
I fully support Jeremy's suggestion to draft a statement. Who is the
addressee? The UNSG?
Why can we not draft something based on Wolfgang's very good comment?
jeanette
Ginger Paque wrote:
> Jeremy, Katitza, Wolfgang, Yrjö, all:
>
> I would like to formally ask Katitza to propose a statement for
> discussion, since she has wide knowledge and experience (as do others)
> in this area.
>
> Kati, can you give us a starting point?
>
> Thanks.
> Best,
> Ginger
>
>
>
> Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
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