[governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation

[William Drake]

Hi

I agree with Ginger, a boycott would raise few eyebrows and have little to no impact.  Disengagement doesn't count for much when they're barely thinking about us in the first place.  If anything, it could be taken as evidence we don't care, or are too weak to even raise a voice.  In a similar vein, in Vilnius I had some IO secretariat people tell me that the lack of response to ITU's online "consultation" a couple years ago concerning possible CS participation therein showed we were disinterested and pretty much irrelevant, hence no opening of ITU was needed. 

While coordination could be hard for various reasons, IGC might consider trying to work with the ICC and ISOC on this.  We've made common cause in the past (mostly in WSIS) on process issues concerning the treatment of non-state actors etc, and any joint effort would probably resonate much more loudly than CS complaining solo.

Best,

Bill


On Oct 13, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:

> In Venezuela it was very obvious that boycotting an election, or a process, leaves your 'opponent' with a 'legal' dictatorship. We cannot willingly give up our voice.
> 
> In our recent poll, the most important issue for the IGC members was precisely 'enhanced cooperation', as I reinforced in my opening statement at the Vilnius IGF. We must raise our voice with a strong statement.
> 
> We must also look for agreement/support/enhanced cooperation with other non-governmental groups--academia, CS, business, etc. so that those who agree make separate and united statements.
> 
> This is a pivotal point imho. We must act decisively and in true 'enhanced cooperation'. We must work in a way that fosters cooperation, with a strong, reinforced--not inundated, valid position.
> 
> We need concrete steps to move forward. How are other groups: APC, and others working with this issue?
> 
> Best, gp
> 
> 
> 
> On 10/13/2010 6:33 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>> Agree that this is a farce.
>> Do we refuse to comment at all and take it to the public sphere, or inundate them with written comments criticizing the approach?
>> --MM
>>  
>> From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:08 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>>  
>> Hi All
>> 
>> Find as enclosed an open letter to all stakeholders to participate in what is supposed to be an open consultation on 'enhanced cooperation' in NY on 14th December.
>> 
>> However, the process is hardly open. It does not seem to be even as open as many traditional UN activities are. Both the Tunis Agenda, and the CSTD/ ECOSOC resolution (quoted in the letter) speaks of 'enhanced               cooperation' itself as involving ' a balanced participation of all stakeholders '.
>> 
>> It should be obvious that a consultation on 'enhanced cooperation', EC, (which is different from the process of enhanced cooperation ) should be even more open and participative that even EC itself. In fact it should be more or less, within limits of logistics constraints, completely open, though probably also structured enough that all governments, for instance, do get to speak all they want to (that is what they normally like to ensure/protect, UN style)
>> 
>> However, the letter says that non -governmental stakeholders will only be allowed to give written contribution, plus a very tokenistic gesture of allowing just one representative (?? whose rep) to speak during the consultations to summarize the contributions of all non governmental stakeholders (whew!) (in maybe about 5 minutes?). So basically they are calling for an inter-governmental consultation. This is not at all an open consultation, and i think we should not give it legitimacy as such.
>> 
>> In fact, the letter clearly speaks of a "consultation with UN member states, Permanent Observers and other inter-governmental organizations to be held on....."
>> 
>> So, it is simply not the "open and inclusive consultations involving all member states and other stakeholders....." that the recent ECOSOC resolution called for, which resolution has been quoted in the letter itself. 
>> 
>> I think all non-governmental stakeholders should refuse to accept it as an open consultation, and write to the SG/ USG immediately about it. If no changes in the format are forthcoming they may all together even agree not to participate in the consultations at all - not even submitting written contributions, and forgoing the 'one rep speaks for all nongov stakeholders' offer.
>> 
>> On the other hand, if there are any genuine concerns of governments that the format should allow enough speak and discussion time for gov reps, which they may feel does not happen in fully open spaces, we can discuss and take them on board to devise a mutually acceptable format. 
>> 
>> Parminder
>> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Ginger (Virginia) Paque
> IGCBP Online Coordinator
> DiploFoundation
> www.diplomacy.edu/ig
> The latest from Diplo...
> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu is the online companion to An Introduction to Internet Governance, Diplo's publication on IG. Download the book, read the blogs and post your comments.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101013/026026b1/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