[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at datos-personales.org
Sun Feb 14 09:04:09 EST 2010
Ginger:
Thanks for your nice proposal. However, I cant accept it. I need to
know more about this overall tensions and get more information from
other colleagues and stakeholders before I form my own opinion.
What we need is to continue the flow of discussion that Yrjo and
Wolfgand started. I still do not like the idea to create an
independent space out of UN..............
All the best, katitza
On Feb 14, 2010, at 8:56 AM, 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100214/a56a27d9/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