[governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III

[Carlos A. Afonso]

Wow, right... I definitely missed the rich ensuing discussion.

--c.a.

Parminder wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> I agree that we should call for IGF review to be taken up at CSTD level 
> onwards, which in any case then goes to the ECOSOC and then to the UN's 
> general assembly, which as per the TA would make the final resolution on 
> the issue. We should develop a statement on this issue addressed to UN 
> Secretary General's offce and of Under Secretary Sha's office.
> 
> I do not see any justification for the the report from formal 
> consultations with IGF participants not to be shared with CSTD. There 
> looks to be elements of avoidable intrigue in it. Lets see what happens 
> since CSTD chairman and some government reps asked for this report to be 
> tabled with CSTD, which is in charge of WSIS follow-up.
> 
> Separately, it may be pertinent to note in this regard that even without 
> the UN under-secretary general's report CSTD can make observation on 
> review of IGF, and on the need of its continuation or not.
> 
> Two other things come to my mind which connect to the present debate.
> 
> One; it is perhaps ironical that when CSTD was developing its own 
> mandate on WSIS follow up,  developed countries opposed IGF's inclusion 
> in definition of WSIS follow up that CSTD was to address. It were a few 
> developing countries and a few CS reps from developing countries who 
> weighed on the side of including IGF in CSTD's remit, whereby IGF was 
> included in CSTD's remit of review and follow up. Where would we be at 
> present if the views of developed countries were accepted at that time?
> 
> The above underscores the need to ensure enough institutional 
> mechanisms, and institutional depth, around spaces concerned with public 
> policies.  Fouad is very much on the point to relate this issue to that 
> of continuation or not of MAG, or even of weakening or strengthening the 
> MAG, which is the second point I wanted to make.
> 
> Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder 
> space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only 
> shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they 
> defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD 
> review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes 
> cognizance of it?
> 
> Parminder
> 
> Fouad Bajwa wrote:
>> I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as
>> well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been
>> carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature
>> to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one
>> incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva.
>>
>> First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region
>> to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in
>> 2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks
>> and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through
>> the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when
>> we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the
>> Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative
>> (I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of
>> their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and
>> stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process
>> as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity
>> somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status
>> to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government
>> stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country
>> government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting
>> in observer status.
>>
>> Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name
>> card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the
>> audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being
>> officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was
>> only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to
>> the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office
>> for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also
>> believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed
>> to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples
>> and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes
>> however this may only be my humble observation.
>>
>> Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again
>> keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a
>> definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other
>> than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete
>> Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This
>> wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN
>> official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental
>> process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by
>> ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great
>> tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war
>> between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental
>> political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to
>> some degree.
>>
>> Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to
>> stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise
>> mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional
>> specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official
>> statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in
>> keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva.
>>
>> This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were
>> concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally
>> feel that If the political management process is lost with the
>> elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the
>> process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process
>> similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU.
>> Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well
>> as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel
>> a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's
>> existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the
>> IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation
>> in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface.
>> As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very
>> concerned!
>>
>> We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am
>> interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a
>> humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain
>> factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in
>> the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the
>> Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our
>> ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG
>> position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the
>> stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva?
>>
>> My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental
>> process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the
>> face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please?
>>
>>
>>   
> 
____________________________________________________________
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