[governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's
Thomas Lowenhaupt
toml at communisphere.com
Wed Mar 31 03:49:58 EDT 2010
Correct, HOWEVER, there must also not be an objection to the release of the draft SG note from any member nation. Tha tis, it seemed to me that an objection from just one General Assembly member would result in the draft note not being released.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: Yrjö Länsipuro
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 3:37 AM
Subject: RE: [governance] REVISED Notes from Under-Secretary-General Sha's
Dear Thomas,
Thank you very much for this report.
The CSTD Bureau consists of the Chair and four Vice-Chairs. Together, they represent all five UN regions. The present Chair is Switzerland, Vice-Chairs are El Salvador,Ghana,India and Slovakia.
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=4805&lang=1
So if I understood correctly, what Sha is saying is that if this group puts in a request, the document can/will be made available to the CSTD.
Best,
Yrjö
> From: toml at communisphere.com
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 02:41:32 -0400
> Subject: [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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100331/d495d2bf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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