[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III

Sun Feb 14 12:51:22 EST 2010

Dear Wolfgang and list members,

As one who in the last two years has only observed this list from far, but
has been involved and battled for civil society since day one in the WSIS
and its outcomes, allow me to make a few observations:

First: I do agree with Wolfgang that the "multistakeholderism" was the
biggest conceptual achievement from WSIS. This was largely due to the
extraordinary expertise that "stakeholders" other than governments brought
into the process. It is also true, that there are trends to move us backward
again, now that some of these governments have developed their own
expertise.

Second: Yes, there are different "spirits" in Geneva and New York. There is
more openness in Geneva due to a long process of clear UN/NGO consultative
arrangements, which NGOs have used to their utmost advantage. For example we
have moved today from observers to "stakeholders" in the Human Rights
Council, a direct subsidiary of the General Assembly (same level as the
Security Council) to which in general we have no institutional arrangements
(with speaking rights, interactive dialogue, written statements, official
panel participation and, depending on governments, to negotiations of
resolutions)But we also still complain of not getting enough time.

In New York, NGOs have developed their own arrangements, e.g. the so called
"Arias Consultations" with the Security Council or "Hearings" with the
General Assembly. NGOs there also are often much more concerned about the
role of the private sector than that of governments.

Third, and what I want to say is: before taken next steps (and I do agree
you should and write a statement in favour of the CSTD) to have a good look
at some analysis writings of why the Cardoso report failed, e.g. here
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22031890/The-Cardoso-Repo
rt-on-the-UN-and-Civil-Society-Functionalism-Global-Corporatism-or-Global-De
mocracy. When I used the term NGO, I mean, as in the article, all of civil
society.

Fourth and last: In rushing through the verbatim of last week's
consultation, I also suggest to take up Finland's remarks about CSTD's role
in negotiating the resolution on WSIS follow up for ECOSOC, also follow
George Papadatos whether ECOSOC Bureau has already discussed this issue and
under which item. BTW, if you have ECOSOC status, you can also speak, lobby
and circulate language at ECOSOC Substantive Session in July.

All the best,

Renate
-------

Renate Bloem
Past President of CONGO
Civicus UN Geneva
Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16
Mobile : +41763462310
renate.bloem at civicus.org
renate.bloem at gmail.com 

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa
www.civicus.org

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
[mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] 
Sent: dimanche, 14. février 2010 12:05
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III

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