AW: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's

Wed Mar 31 03:21:07 EDT 2010

Dear Thomas

thanks very very much. 

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Thomas Lowenhaupt [mailto:toml at communisphere.com]
Gesendet: Mi 31.03.2010 08:41
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's briefing on IGF at UN New York March 30 2010

Sorry for this REVISED version but I noticed that several ellipses ... were
stripped from my earlier version.

Internet Governance - IGF Briefing by Under-Secretary-General Sha at UN
March 30, 2010

The briefing began at 3:15 PM at the new temporary building at UN
Headquarters in New York City. Under-Secretary- General for Economic and
Social Affairs Mr. Sha Zukang presided.

Mr. Sha began with a statement about his early interest in Internet
Governance, stating that he was the first to bring up the subject of
Internet Governance at the U.N. Apparently responding to some suspicion
arising from his former position as China's Ambassador to the U.N., and the
controversies about China's oversight of that nation's Internet resources,
he stated that he spoke as a U.N. employee. He stated that China had no real
interest in this matter and was not even present in the hall. "They don't
care."

He then read a six page statement, interspersed with personal observations.
I'll endeavor to transcribe from the written statement beginning after the
history on page 3, under the heading "How The Review Process Will Unfold."
After reading the statement Mr. Sha took statements from Yemen, EU, Egypt,
Sri Lanka, Canada, U.S., U.K., France, Norway, ICC and some concluding
statements by Mr. Sha.

>From page 3 of the written statement [with my comments in brackets] -

------------------------------

How The Review Process Will Unfold

When the IGF was created, it was given a lifespan of five years, after which
time Member States would review the desirability of its continuation. The
Secretary-General was asked to assist in this process by examining its
merits taking into account the views of its many participants. More
precisely, Member States, in paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda "ask the UN
Secretary General to examiner the desirability of the continuation of the
Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of
its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this
regard." Those five years have now come to an end.

The formal consultations were initiated by an online process...

A total of 61 written submissions were received following these calls for
public comment, of which 40 responded to the online questionnaire.
Contributions were received from Governments... Comments were also received
from a number of individuals.

In November 2009, I convened a formal consultation with IGF participants
during the fourth meeting of the Forum in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt. During the
consultation 47 speakers...

Eight statements of participants who were not given a speaking time slot due
to time constraints were posted online. In addition, two statement were
submitted after the consultations.

The total number of contributions over the six month consultation period
from July to December 2009 was thus 118.

Paragraph 35 of the Tunis Agenda enumerates four groups of stakeholders and
describes, in broad terms, the role that each might play in Internet
governance. They are:

1. Governments;

2. The private sector;

3. Civic society;

4. Intergovernmental and other international organizations.

Member States also recognized "the valuable contributions by the academic
and technical communities within those stakeholder groups...

Here, Member States have been very clear. The WSIS Declaration of Principles
adopted during the first phase of the Summit express a commitment to
building an inclusive, people-centered and development-oriented Information
Society for all. The Tunis Agenda, adopted during the second phase,
reinforced this understanding by calling for the establishment of a platform
for multistakeholder dialogue, the IGF, where voices could be heard.

What stakeholders have said

[This section enumerated six areas where participants made suggestions.]

Submission of the Recommendations of the Secretary-General

It is in the spirit of inclusiveness that the recommendations of the
Secretary-General must be prepared , taking into account the opinions
expressed by all stakeholder groups in the consultations.

Based on Paragraph 76 of the Tunis Agenda, the note will be transmitted to
the 65th session of the General Assembly for consideration under item 17 of
the provisional agenda on information and communication technology for
development.

The General Assembly will decide on the issue of the consultation of the
IGF.

Recently, some Member States have expressed the desire that the note of the
Secretary-General on continuation of the IGF be submitted to the CSTD for
consideration.

As you know, the agenda and the programme of the work of the CSTD were
decided by ECOSOC in its decision 2009/219. The decision did not request
that the Commission review the continuation of the IGF. Nor was there any
subsequent request for the submission of the recommendations of the
Secretary-General to the CSTD.

In the provisional annotated agenda and organization of work issued early
this month under the symbol E/CN.16/2010/1, the matter of the continuation
of the IGF was nowhere mentioned in the annotated agenda of the CSTD.

While CSTD is scheduled to consider WSIS follow up, it will address the
broad issue of the assessment of the five-year progress made in the
implementation of WSIS.

Without a specific request from the CSTD, as requested in the decision of
ECOSOC, DESA is proceeding with the preparation of the recommendations of
the /Secretary-General, with the documentation timeline for the General
Assembly. [Here he emphasized the need and difficulty of translating into
the UN's 6 languages.]

The matter whether the CSTD will consider the recommendations of the
Secretary-General on the continuation of the IGF will therefore be a
decision by Member States.

Regarding the note of the Secretary-General containing the recommendations
of the continuation of the IGF, UNDESA could circulate the note of the
Secretary-General during the 13th session of the CSTD in Geneva from 17-21
May. [Here Mr. Sha emphasized the use of the word "could."]

However, since the Secretariat is preparing the note according to the
documentation timeline of the General Assembly, the note will be only in
unedited form in English only. The official document on six languages will
not be available before then. As you know, the advance text itself must go
through editing, translation and production processes.

So the issue before us is two-fold - a decision by member states as to
whether the recommendations of the Secretary-General should be submitted
first to CSTD; whether Member States could proceed with consideration of the
recommendations in the advance unedited form and not in six official
languages.

At any rate I would be pleased to send a representative to CSTD to share
whatever information we can on the substance of the SGs recommendations, if
invited.

Let me conclude by repeating that this briefing serves to inform you about
the process for preparation of the SGs recommendation...

Mr. Sha then took statements from several entities.

Yemen - presented a "Statement on Behalf of the Group of 77 and China." (See
http://www.g77.org/doc/ on Group of 77) After a preamble it made 6 points,
which I paraphrase:

1. The issue is important and must be addressed at the General Assembly
regardless of other fora that might also discuss it.

2. G77 and China believe IGF should be reviewed every 2-3 years.

3. IGF should focus, among other areas, "on how to resolve significant
public policy issues such as the unilateral control of the critical Internet
resources..."

4. The IGF should move beyond advice and provide advice to intergovernmental
bodies.

5. LDC's should be more involved than in the past.

6. "the Tunis Agenda should be strictly followed, when reforming the IGF, so
as not to duplicate the work and mandates of other existing arrangements,
mechanisms, institutions or organizations." And the IGF should continue to
work under the auspices of the UN.

EU- Offered strong support for another five years in its current form. The
CSTD should be directly involved in the process. They suggested that the
preliminary note's "could" be circulated status be changed to "will."

Egypt - They subscribe to Group of 77 plus China. Supports continuation of
IGF but its working methods need to be revised. Needs more financial support
for LDCs. Paragraph 71 has not been followed.

Sri Lanka - Support continuation of IGF.

Canada - Supports IGF continuation.

U.S. - Statement by Michael Snowden, Advisor, Economic and Social Affairs.
Appreciate effort put forward by Mr. Sha. Echo previous statement. IGF has
been valuable. They second the hope that an early version of the SGs notes
can be circulated prior to CSTD.

U.K. - 60252 asked ECOSOC to work with CSTD. Would like copy circulated
prior to CSTD.

Mr. Sha Comment - As long as the General Assembly membership agrees that an
English-only version may circulate, he will enable it. But there must be a
unanimous call for this.

France - Agreed with G 77 and China and EU. Wants it for the CSTD meeting
but language is an issue. [Here Mr. Sha praised France.]

Norway - Asked about paragraph 71. Staff had to check this and this process
was to be undertaken by Council of Europe, ICANN, IETF, OECD, WIPO, W3C. He
referred to a SG progress report in 2008.

Mr. Sha noted that he follows the General Assembly:

193 members of General Assembly

54 members of ECOSOC

43 members of CSTD.

ICC (International Chamber of Commerce - Supports continuation of IGF.

Mr. Sha - CSTD can be helpful but it can't supplant the work of the General
Assembly. He needs a request from the CSTD, from the bureau [not sure which
that is] or an ad hoc group before he can release the draft SG note. He also
needs the non-English to say it is OK, or minimally not object. One
objection would probably stop him from releasing it.

End of notes and comments. Tom Lowenhaupt. 2:06 AM. March 31, 2010.

____________________________________________________________
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

____________________________________________________________
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