[governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Wed Feb 17 07:08:57 EST 2010

Jeremy,

You may consider these comments too late in the day and may ignore them. 
I havent reached Bangalore yet after the open consultations and thus the 
delay.

However if you are still considering major changes i would suggest that 
we make a simple though strong statement that IGF review should be an 
elaborate process with MS involvement, and it is but appropriate that UN 
Secy Gen's recommendations based on the formal consultations with IGF 
participants at Sharm is presented to the CSTD before it is reviewed by 
ECOSOC and then the UN Gen Assembly which makes the final decision. CSTD 
clearly has a formal role in WSIS follow up as per section 105 of TA, 
and IGF review is obviously a part of WSIS review.

We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively  greater  
multistakeholder (MS) involvement.

However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am 
really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ 
New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a 
temporary window was created to involve all WSIS accredited 
organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at 
CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only in allocated 
slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in drafting 
processes, though informal practices may operate (sometimes). So while 
we may make this point, I dont think we should push it too much.

In fact, in making the statement it might be best to stress the CSTD 
factor, since CSTD is formally assigned to do WSIS follow up and not so 
much the MS point (which should follow form implication) because  TA 
para  76 clearly says that UN Secy Gen after formal consultations with 
IGF participants will 'make recommendations to the UN membership'. We 
can say that CSTD, like ECOSOC is extension of the UN membership review 
system.

parminder

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> I think I have incorporated everyone's suggestions in what appears 
> below.  If not, let me know.  If all is well, my feeling is that we 
> can probably move swiftly to a consensus call.  If not, please 
> contribute specific language that would address your dissatisfaction.
>
> When the consensus call is made, responding to feedback from last 
> time, I propose to experiment with Web-based polling, rather than the 
> usual stream of "YES" and "NO" emails to the list (though the list can 
> and should still be used for comments during the consensus call 
> period).  If there are any objections to that, please say so now.
>
> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED 
> NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its 
> unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet 
> Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as a 
> potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the last IGF 
> open consultation meeting on 10 February that your recommendations on 
> the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed by the CSTD 
> (Commission on Science and Technology for Development).  In raising 
> this concern, we are joining our voice to those of several governments 
> who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation meeting.
>
> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" 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 society 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 civil society 
> representatives 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 contribution to the results 
> of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).  The launch of 
> the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of 
> this. 
>
> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up  of the WSIS outcomes, 
> including the IGF, was granted  to ECOSOC, with the actual review and 
> assessment work tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, 
> which for this purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the 
> multistakeholder approach".   (Tunis Agenda, para 105).  The "opening" 
> of the CSTD to other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 
> 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218.  According to these 
> decisions,  all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private 
> sector representatives were invited to  participate in the work of the 
> CSTD.
>
> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC 
> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments 
> on the performance of the IGF.  Its multi-stakeholder process, like 
> that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and 
> successful.  A similar approach has also resulted in success in other 
> forums: for example, national and regional IGFs that have brought 
> valuable contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF. 
>  There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process 
> on the question of the continuation of the IGF.
>
> In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder 
> institution.  Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is 
> limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by 
> ECOSOC.  More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at 
> WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the 
> private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all.  This makes 
> it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution.
>
> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open 
> and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental 
> stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil 
> society (and the 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.
>
> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting 
> your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for 
> consideration at its May meeting, where they will be open for review 
> by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique 
> multi-stakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, 
> civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the 
> continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General 
> Assembly might well be reduced. 
>
> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support 
> for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the 
> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in 
> Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract 
> with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 
> (UNDESA).
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> -- 
>
> *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_
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100217/00d2832d/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