[governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation

Fouad Bajwa fouadbajwa at gmail.com
Wed Oct 13 20:05:10 EDT 2010 

One important aspect that can be included in our protest is that the
date of such a consultation has been organized after the Open
Consultation and MAG meeting of the IGF in Geneva. That is already a
major financial expense by IGF stakeholders and then this consultation
comes as another financial burden for those that would have wanted to
participate should this have been open to all stakeholders.

First, this non-fictional drama is being set at a later date than the
CSTD IGF improvements WG first meeting (as I heard that it was going
to take place right after the IGF Open Consultation and MAG meeting in
Geneva next month). We should demand it to be continuing in an open
format like the Open Consultations following the above meetings with
the location in Geneva.


...........power gonna go shortly so this is it for the moment.......

-- Fouad

On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:11 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Fair enough, I see Avri's point. But we need to strongly express the issues
> we have with the process.
>
>
>
>
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Avri Doria <avri at psg.com>
>> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:25:57 -0400
>> To: IGC <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think if you can get someone into the room, you get someone into the room.
>>
>> There is more that can be done than just making formal statements.  And often
>> being in the room is critical.  E.g. It allows you to pass notes to your
>> favorite contact from a national delegation.  It allows you to join in the
>> coffee chatter during breaks.
>>
>> Which reminds me, if we are back to this state of affairs, people have to
>> start looking at getting into their national delegations again.  This was a
>> powerful aid to CS during WSIS when only delegations were allowed into some
>> rooms. Having the right colored badge can be critical.
>>
>> All the memories and tricks learned in the bad old days come flooding back.
>> Ouch!
>>
>> And yes, we should find some way to set up a parallel meeting in NYC.  Perhaps
>> someone local to city with resources, i mean rooms, can help make that
>> possible.
>>
>> a.
>>
>>
>> On 13 Oct 2010, at 16:48, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>> And perhaps accompanied by a joint statement not to attend or participate
>>> under these terms?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:05:10 +1000
>>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
>>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>>>
>>> Agree with all the comments we should seek a joint icc/igc/isoc response if
>>> possible
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: William Drake <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>>> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, William Drake
>>> <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>
>>> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:11:27 +0200
>>> To: Governance <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
>>>
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>> ***********************************************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list