[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III

[Parminder]

Hi All

I agree that we should call for IGF review to be taken up at CSTD level 
onwards, which in any case then goes to the ECOSOC and then to the UN's 
general assembly, which as per the TA would make the final resolution on 
the issue. We should develop a statement on this issue addressed to UN 
Secretary General's offce and of Under Secretary Sha's office.

I do not see any justification for the the report from formal 
consultations with IGF participants not to be shared with CSTD. There 
looks to be elements of avoidable intrigue in it. Lets see what happens 
since CSTD chairman and some government reps asked for this report to be 
tabled with CSTD, which is in charge of WSIS follow-up.

Separately, it may be pertinent to note in this regard that even without 
the UN under-secretary general's report CSTD can make observation on 
review of IGF, and on the need of its continuation or not.

Two other things come to my mind which connect to the present debate.

One; it is perhaps ironical that when CSTD was developing its own 
mandate on WSIS follow up,  developed countries opposed IGF's inclusion 
in definition of WSIS follow up that CSTD was to address. It were a few 
developing countries and a few CS reps from developing countries who 
weighed on the side of including IGF in CSTD's remit, whereby IGF was 
included in CSTD's remit of review and follow up. Where would we be at 
present if the views of developed countries were accepted at that time?

The above underscores the need to ensure enough institutional 
mechanisms, and institutional depth, around spaces concerned with public 
policies.  Fouad is very much on the point to relate this issue to that 
of continuation or not of MAG, or even of weakening or strengthening the 
MAG, which is the second point I wanted to make.

Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder 
space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only 
shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they 
defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD 
review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes 
cognizance of it?

Parminder

Fouad Bajwa wrote:
> 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?
>
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100215/81ded096/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