[governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Parminder wrote:
> 

  > Jeremy
> 
> I suggest an alternative strategy, but if others want to go by the 
> original one it is fine with me. I will sign on it as well.
> 
> The problem is that the opening para itself I think have some factual
>  errors, 


I cannot see any factual errors in the following para:

and the UN SG's office will lose interest as another 'we
> want more MS-ism' pitch by the CS when we have a much stronger case
> here which is not presented.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of
> multistakeholderism 

I would recommend that you re-read the statement of France.

but underlying their objections was a different
> politics. 

These issues are by no means mutually exclusive. I guess that most 
governments wouldn't be happy to return to an intergovernmental process 
designed to discuss IG forever. The MS approach is more productive and 
provides them with a lot of flexibility.

jeanette


They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some
> games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a
> better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont
> be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are
> members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get
> matters to the CSTD and vice versa.  So, since weakening MS process
> was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really
> spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first
> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the
> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is
> all.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> We need to correct this a bit. It looks like there have been earlier
> recs on continuation of the IGF. we will have to say '... as has been
> done in the past with all matters pertaining to WSIS follow up.'
> 
> 
> Also quoting WSIS extensively on multistakeholderism would not really
> to be of much effect because in response one can just quote para 76
> which deals with the matter under consideration which clearly says
> that the UN SG's recs based on formal consultations  with forum
> participants will be submitted to the 'UN membership' which is read
> by all in the UN system as UN GA, and certainly, as pertaining to
> governments as UN members.
> 
> So the real issue here, which gives us the best traction,  is
> 
> whether CSTD, as the proper process followed in the past,  or not,
> 
> and not
> 
> whether a multistakeholder process (for consideration of SG's report)
> or not.
> 
> But as I said I will go with the other IGC statement under
> consideration as well.
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
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