[governance] Result of IGF negotiation - one observation

[Adam Peake]

Regarding this comment:

"The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer."

Are they referring to para 19
<http://igbook.diplomacy.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/ga65-ICTs-resol-19-Nov-clean-text1.pdf>
which is talking about the comments in Sharm and the process run by
Mr. Sha, specifically:

That "particular consideration of, inter alia, enhancing participation
from developing countries, exploring further voluntary options for IGF
financing and improving the preparation process modalities, and the
work and the functioning of the Secretariat;"

Fair enough. As all comments about the function of the Secretariat
were positive (except asking that it be better funded), that's what we
and other say during the ongoing CSTD process.  Remind the
consultation that the Secretariat (Desai/Kummer) has been consistently
praised.  CSTD doesn't have to recommend improvements where none are
judged necessary.

Adam



On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> I asked the person involved with the negotiation at UN
> if I can share the following annotated observation, and I
> got the positive reply.
>
> The draft text is in the "silent" status until the final discussion,
> not supposed to be disclosed, but it's already leaked.
>
> izumi
>
> -------------
>
> This text taken as a whole is a fairly satisfactory result:
> IGF renewal without any major changes. In the to-ing and fro-ing of the
> last three weeks'
> informal negotiations in New York, we didn't get every change to the
> G77 draft that we
> wanted. In particular, I think it is good that the text:
>
> - recognises the "importance of the IGF and its mandate as a
> multi-stakeholder dialogue.....
> in order to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability
> and development of the Internet" ;
>
> - states that the enhanced cooperation and IGF tracks of WSIS "may be
> complementary";
>
> - states that the Sharm consultation "generally welcomed" renewal of the
> IGF mandate: this is more accurate and positive language than that of
> the SG report;
>
> - renews the mandate for 5 years according to the TA72 mandate, i.e.
> without any change
> and not contingent on CSTD WG recommendations on improving the IGF: so
> our core objective has been met;
>
> - advocates support for developing country "enhanced participation",
> thereby advocating t he relevance of the IGF and its preparatory
> meetings to the interests of developing countries - and helps our
> message that "the IGF is for you: so make use of it" ;
>
> - does not seek radically to restructure or re-organise the IGF;
>
> - in particular does not create a new traditional UN bureau to run it
> and there are no references at all to such radical options, despite
> China tabling such language;
>
> - maintains voluntary funding principle for the Secretariat (though
> there may be more options) ;
>
> - underscores the ECOSOC decision to set up a CSTD working group on
> improvements which involves all stakeholders, to report mid-2011;
>
> - stresses the need for national public policy process to include
> multi-stakeholder approaches;
>
> - generally promotes national, regional and international
> multi-stakeholder partnerships which help institutionalise the IGF model
> at all layers.
>
> One other item that is worth mentioning: there was an attempt throughout
> the negotiations to create a new reporting track, calling for the
> Secretary General in the context of reporting on the progress made
> towards ICT for Development to focus on progress in the "improvement" of
> the IGF. This ran the risk of turning the ICT for Development Resolution
> into an annual IGF resolution. We succeeded in countering that proposal
> so that there is no specific reference in the text to 2nd Committee
> reporting on the IGF.
>
> However, in negotiations of this nature, while our key objectives were
> secured, we could not win on every point. In particular, it is
> regrettable that the text does not do more to talk up the successes of
> the IGF to balance the negative thread of "acknowledging the calls for
> improvements" (though happily diluted from "many calls" in the original
> text), "recogniz(ing) the need for further discussion on the improvement
> of its working methods" and "consideration of IGF
> improvements....particular(ly) improving the preparation process
> modalities and the work and the functioning of the Secretariat". These
> several references to improvements in the text could for those with no
> direct experience of the IGF give the erroneous impression of something
> needing major change or even that the IGF is inherently flawed which is
> clearly not the case.
>
> The last reference to the IGF Secretariat was particularly
> disappointing; we had tried to remove it because there had been no
> comments in the formal consultations either in Sharm or online directly
> criticising the work and the functioning of the Secretariat: rather the
> opposite in fact in view of the many plaudits for the dedication and
> achievements of both Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer.
>
> We undertook a round of briefings of G77 missions at the UN before
> the 2nd Committee met - including the G77 drafters and the lead for the
> Least Developed Countries - to ensure they understood fully what the IGF
> is, the strong level of support of stakeholders from all regions
> including developing countries, its track record and successes, its open
> preparatory consultation processes and how the IGF has evolved and
> self-improved over the 5 years since the WSIS. These were also key
> messages at the ICC/ISOC briefing on 21 October.
>
> END
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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