[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III

Tue Feb 16 15:17:31 EST 2010

Hello Wolfgang Kleinwaechter and Hello All,

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:34 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.
>

Thank you for your lucid message that explains the status of the review
process.

As stated by Yrjo in his message, Civil Society would be reduced to that of
observers (or outsiders) if CSTD is bypassed in the review process. On this
issue, IGC has to raise its voice and go beyond its traditional ways of
'raising it vocie' by written statements or submissions. It is more
important  "to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and
private sector institutions" as you have emphasized. It requires on and off
line efforts.

> 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.
>

The role of non-governmental stakeholders in the policy process not only
made some governments uncomfortable, but also the ITU, for various reasons.

> 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".

In telecommunication policy decisions it was apparently an
inter-governmental process,but not quite. The ITU had a role to play in its
apparent status as a UN Agency, though in reality it is a business union.
ITU sought to extend its status to Internet Policy, but perceived a serious
threat to its status in the trend towards multi-stakeholderism. So it was
not only Governments that are opposed to mutlistakeholderism, but also the
ITU.

> 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.
>

Is there a way to find one UN member state to introduce a draft resolution
to revive the recommendations covered by the cardozo Report ? By Brazil
perhaps?

>
> 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)

Who are the CS people and organizations that support this move? Possibly US
based CS groups and individuals misguided by their patriotic prejudices? We
should work on making them understand.

> 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.

Is this statement that they are in the "same boat as CS" true of "friendly
governments"? Some of the friendly governments are in a position to
influence policies in their region, some of well respected even outside
their regions and some are in a position to lead a group of nations. As a
starting point, the IGC participants from Government may sit together and
identify "friendly governments" and responsible Government representatives
(within CSTD, ECOSOC, MAG, GAC, or within political regions that are active
in the Internet Governance arena such as OECD or EU). Apart from the IGC
participants from Government, a few non-governmental participants of IGC
would also be in a position to reach their respective governments to
influence policy.

Not all news is bad. Switzerland and other European Governments are vocal in
their opposition to a reduced role for CSTD. Most European Governments are
sensitive to the concerns of their citizens or at least approachable to
their citizens and CS groups. Some Governments can even be considered
pro-Internet : Brazil, Finland ... Civil Society could begin its work
starting with these governments. Apart from consolidating their support, we
need to get them to influence opinions to the extent possible. In this
effort, some of the large, powerful pro-Internet Corporations would be of
great help, if we can reach them either on our own, or through International
Internet Organizations.

I also wonder why India or Egypt is not doing anything to influence the
developing nations through the Non Alignment movement

> And please, stay united.
>
> I have seen an unseen hand causing differences among the good forces,
especially by breeding mistrust among ourselves. The need of the hour is to
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.
>

WSIS has to be reconstituted as expressed in another message from Wolfgang
Kleinwaechter.

> 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.
>

So many things to do apart from making statements. Statements are important,
but some quiet work is essential to cause the required change.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy

>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100217/4194b6b7/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