[governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Oct 13 08:28:18 EDT 2010


Hi All

I did not ask for disengagement,  but getting together with other 
stakeholders to write to SG/USG saying this process is not acceptable, 
and contrary to both WSIS-TA and to the ECOSOC resolution under which 
this consultation is being carried out... But when one puts forward 
strong reservations about  a process,  possible non-engagement with the 
particular inappropriate process that is being referred to is obviously 
an implied threat.

A strong combined statement by CS, technical community and business 
sector would have some force. And then we can also talk to govs who will 
see our side and sympathise.

I am hardly one to advocate disengagement as such with the process of 
enhanced cooperation.

parminder


On Wednesday 13 October 2010 05:41 PM, William Drake wrote:
> 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 <http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig>
>>
>> *The latest from Diplo...*
>> http://igbook.diplomacy.edu <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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 
>> <mailto: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 
> <mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101013/f0733edf/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