[governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

Thu Feb 18 04:31:30 EST 2010

Hi, here some further suggestions:

civil society as equal partner is still in the document:
"By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner
 > in their specific role (Para 61)." We should rather use TA language 
were possible.

Instead of "This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World
 > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)." we might say, "we regards 
this" or many observers regard this as the biggest..."

3. para: The following sentence is somewhat odd and I do not really 
understand it: "For
 > this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the
 > multistakeholder approach"  (Tunis Agenda, para 105)."

4. para: The following sentence should be toned down as it sounds a bit 
too categorical: "There is therefore no reason for a sudden
 > departure from this process on the question of the continuation of
 > the IGF." We could say instead that we don't understand the reason or 
something to that effect.

5. para: can be dropped I think

7. para: Anomaly seems wrong terminology to me. "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."

We should ask to reconsider the decision and to express his support and 
commitment to te multistakeholder approach by fully including the CSTD 
in the evaluation process or something along this line. In any case, it 
shouldn't sound like an order.

jeanette

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> 
>> 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...)
> 
> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and
> additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to
> address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by
> (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to
> me.  I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than
> "multi-stakeholder".  Please keep the comments rolling so that we can
> finalise this soon.
> 
> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED
> NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON
> 
> Dear Sir,
> 
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of
> the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder
> process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential
> weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several
> governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open
> consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation
> meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the
> continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on
> Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the
> past.
> 
> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para
> 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and
> public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was
> recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World
> Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly
> multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet
> Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner
> in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive
> and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during
> WSIS I and II. This was 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. It was also demonstrated in the
> contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet
> Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for
> "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this.
> 
> 
> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was
> given responsibility for the general follow-up  of the WSIS outcomes,
> including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were
> delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For
> this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the
> multistakeholder approach"  (Tunis Agenda, para 105).  The inclusion
> in the CSTD of 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.  By accommodating other
> stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's
> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as
> innovative and successful.  There is therefore no reason for a sudden
> departure from this process on the question of the continuation of
> the IGF.
> 
> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would
> welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental
> stakeholders in the IGF review.  However even as it stands, the CSTD
> does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its
> parent body, ECOSOC.  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.
> 
> 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. There, they will be open for review
> by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique
> multistakeholder 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.
> 
____________________________________________________________
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