[governance] consultations on enhanced cooperation
Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA
nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr
Thu Oct 14 06:09:32 EDT 2010
Hello all,
I agree that we have to make a joint statement. One of the idea to put in would
be to criticise the law level of openess of that event.
NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
Burundi Youth Training Centre
www.bytc.bi
Tel : +257 79 981459
________________________________
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101014/e87c376b/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