[governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Feb 21 00:48:24 EST 2010
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts
>> of Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful.
>
> Perhaps combining the two would be a good compromise. I still think it
> is not necessary to explain to the UN why CSTD needs to get the report
> in May. The follow para from Parminder is good for educating
> ourselves, but I don't think UN headquarters need this explanation:
>
> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the
> > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer
> > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to
> > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the
> > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on
> > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier.
>
> jeanette
We can leave this para out, but I will explain its rationale. The point
was to subtly suggest how an bureaucratic decision (a whim, if not a
deliberate effort) of not presenting the report to 2010 session of CSTD
will have the effect of subverting the political (and thus much more
substantive by UN considerations) 'desire' of ECOSOC, which kind of
thing is normally taken with considerable seriousness in the UN or for
that matter in any political establishment.
Parminder
>
>
>>
>> Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within
>> Jeremy's draft as quoted.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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,
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I still prefer that we start with
>>
>> IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the
>> recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary
>> General's report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the
>> continuation of the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF
>> Sharm be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before
>> it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly.
>>
>> The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates"
>> is good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking
>> this up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN
>> Secretary General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to
>> the CSTD in its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and
>> UN Assembly, as recommended by many Government delegates at the
>> February 2010 Open Consultations." This report by the Secretary
>> General on the 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet
>> Governance Forum' is based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009
>> held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects the wishes of the participants
>> of the forum. " could be more readable.
>>
>>
>> This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of
>> concerned actors, including governments, with this very important
>> issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS
>> follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement
>> with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best
>> basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC
>> and the UN
>> Assembly.
>>
>>
>> Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " 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."
>>
>> As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft
>> "In the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and
>> " The Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the
>> work of the CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance
>> of a well drafted diplomatic statement.
>>
>>
>> We further agree with the statements made by some government
>> representatives
>>
>>
>> To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote
>> what they said.
>>
>> in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to
>> short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues
>> concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past.
>>
>> It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at
>> the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the
>> report to the CSTD". We may have to say it here.
>>
>> Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " 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."
>>
>> So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft,
>> for better impact.
>>
>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy
>>
>>
>>
>> It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's
>> report on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC
>> has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior
>> consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally
>> prefer CSTD's views on
>>
>>
>> issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no
>> reason why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF.
>>
>> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the
>> CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer
>> it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to
>> consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the
>> matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on
>> continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent
>> process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be
>> made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will
>> help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on
>> this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the
>> relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be
>> the key factor in the present context) .
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>> 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 <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>
>>
>> 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
More information about the Governance
mailing list