[governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Wed Feb 17 18:59:45 EST 2010

I too agree with Parminder, Deirdre and Yrjo's comments and the
relevant changes to the text. Short communication with an assertive
tone is necessary at this stage.

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

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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. Don't print this email unless
> necessary.
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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