[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III

Sun Feb 14 14:45:36 EST 2010

I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as
well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been
carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature
to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one
incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva.

First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region
to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in
2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks
and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through
the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when
we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the
Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative
(I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of
their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and
stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process
as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity
somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status
to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government
stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country
government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting
in observer status.

Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name
card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the
audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being
officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was
only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to
the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office
for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also
believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed
to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples
and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes
however this may only be my humble observation.

Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again
keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a
definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other
than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete
Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This
wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN
official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental
process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by
ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great
tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war
between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental
political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to
some degree.

Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to
stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise
mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional
specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official
statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in
keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva.

This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were
concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally
feel that If the political management process is lost with the
elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the
process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process
similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU.
Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well
as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel
a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's
existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the
IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation
in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface.
As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very
concerned!

We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am
interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a
humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain
factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in
the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the
Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our
ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG
position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the
stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva?

My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental
process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the
face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please?

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:04 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 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