[governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Lee W McKnight lmcknigh at syr.edu
Wed Feb 17 19:38:56 EST 2010 

Hi,

Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre.

I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment -

2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...)

(this allows sec gen to be shocked! shocked! at unauthorized machinations of underlings....since of course we're sure he would never knowingly bypass cstd right? : )
________________________________________
From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:52 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: Yrjö Länsipuro; Lee W McKnight
Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Leaned on by Lee to put my money where my mouth is :-) I offer this revision for consideration. I have taken Jeremy's original that Parminder commented on at the beginning of this thread, and added my suggestions, paragraph by paragraph, in blue. Most of the words are really Jeremy's.
I have done nothing to the 2 ECOSOC paragraphs which still seem to be under discussion.
I have tried to make phrases enclosed in inverted commas refer verbatim to the Tunis Agenda with the paragraph reference.
I am concerned about the inclusion of the word "equal" - see the part in red. I cannot find the word in the Tunis Agenda (in the context where we use it), and it is very loaded language. We certainly should NOT make it appear to be a quotation if it does not appear in the original.
Deirdre

On 17 February 2010 17:45, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu<mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:
I further agree with Deirdre and Yrjo.

And I am happy Deirdre volunteered to do a quick revision of the doc for readability, clarity & conciseness : )


________________________________________
From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com<mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:03 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Yrjö Länsipuro
Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

I agree with Yrjö's point.
I also wonder about the writing style of the statement. I know long sentences are the norm for bureaucratic documents :-), but short simple sentences communicate much more efficiently, particularly when one is communicating across languages?
Deirdre

On 17 February 2010 10:06, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com<mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com><mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com<mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com>>> wrote:
Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage.  We could also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate other stakeholders as per  WSIS principles, but we should not get in the argument about the ECOSOC.

Yrjö

________________________________
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch><mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch<mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100
CC: jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org><mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>; parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net><mailto:parminder at itforchange.net<mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>>
Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing


Hi

On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote:

[snip]

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.

I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC.

BD

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

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.


________________________________
Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. 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<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto: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



--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979



--
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979
____________________________________________________________
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

More information about the Governance mailing list