[governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Sun Feb 21 11:01:27 EST 2010
Parminder wrote:
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 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
I don't think it makes sense to be subtle in such a statement. We should
clearly state what we want. I also don't think we need to explain to the
UN the implications of their scheduling efforts. I trust the UN
bureaucracy is not only well aware of them, it uses such gaming with
clear ends in mind.
jeanette
(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