[governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations

Mon Aug 1 09:28:15 EDT 2011

Many Thanks, Marilia, for your valuable information on the biased representativity of CS in CSTD; this is particularly seriuos as far as the WSIS follow-up process is concerned.

it would be interesting to get some comments from the "multistakeholderism freaks" of our list  :-) ...

Jean-Louis Fullsack

> Message du 31/07/11 18:08
> De : "Marilia Maciel" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Renate Bloem (Gmail)  wrote:
> 
> 
Otherwise ECOSOC adopted without vote all the decisions from its subsidiary body the CSTD, including “Participation on non-governmental organizations and civil society entities not accredited to WSIS in the work of CSTD”, taking down the last barrier for participation in the Commission.

> 
> 
This evaluation is not accurate. Let me call your attention to what the 3 resolutions about the participation of Civil Society, the private sector and the technical academic community in CSTD say. They flagrantly disrespect the principle of multistakeholder participation, they put civil society in disadvantage and CS has completely ignored the existence of this inequality.  Participation of non-governmental actors in CSTD, is allowed on the following basis:
> a) In 2007 civil society organizations that had WSIS accreditation were authorized to participate in CSTD. This provision was based on the understanding that these organizations would apply for consultative status with the ECOSOC. The arrangement would be valid only for two years, but it was extended until 2011. (ECOSOC Decision 2007/215 and 2008/217)

> 
b) In 2007 Business sector entities were authorized to take part on the work of the CSTD in more flexible conditions. They should preferably, but not mandatorily, have WSIS accreditation. This arrangement was reviewed in 2010, and was extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2007/216 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227); 

> 
c
) In 2008 Academic entities, including academies of science and engineering, were authorized to take part in CSTD meetings without the need for WSIS accreditation, if they express the wish to participate. This arrangement was reviewed in 2010 and extended until 2011 (ECOSOC Decision 2008/218 and ECOSOC Decision 2010/227).
> 

> 
> 

> 
> 

This case allows to draw some conclusions. First, the participation of non-governmental actors is currently based on temporary decisions that may or may not be renewed after their expiration date. This precarious situation shows the fragility of multistakeholder  participation in CSTD. Secondly, there is quite a discrepancy on the requirements for the participation of each stakeholder group, and the barriers for the participation of civil society are comparatively higher. While the private sector and the technical and academic communities need only to express their interest to participate, civil society needs to have accreditation with ECOSOC, or must have participated in WSIS in 2003 or 2005.
> 

> 
> 

This situation is symbolic, as it shows a worrisome inversion of values in CSTD. The voices of actors who represent the private interests have an easier access to the political process, of compared to those who would have the role of promoting public interest objectives.
> 

> 
> 

It must be clarified, however, that the low entry barriers have not resulted in a significant increase in the participation of the private sector and of technical and academic community in CSTD. On the contrary, the renewal and variation of the representatives is reduced, showing a concentration of political power among few players. It is also interesting to notice the lack of mobilization from civil society against this unequal status quo. While civil society has correctly and vehemently defended the preservation of multistakeholder participation in other political spaces, like the 2011 G8 meeting about the Internet it has remained silent on the face of this closer and more flagrant inequality among stakeholder groups in CSTD.
> 

During the last CSTD meeting in May Brazil tried to propose a resolution that would ask the CSTD Secretariat to propose ways to improve the conditions for the participation of CS in order to redress this unbalance. The member countries preferred to renew the current arrangement until 2015. 
> What should CS do about that?
> Best,Marília  

However, participation in ECOSOC itself is still restricted to ECOSOC NGOs. But these 4 week long substantive sessions in July, alternating between NY and Geneva, are seen by many NGOs/CSOs just as rubberstamping exercises, apart from the High level segment at the beginning, and therefore not worth their attendance (I have a slightly different opinion) , except for Geneva or NY based entities for sections of their interest. Jean Louis, this may explain the low attendance of CSOs. But the relative high attendance of Governments at least indicates interest in the issues. NGOs are invited and can also take the floor on any item.

Best
Renate

From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Louis FULLSACK
> Sent: jeudi, 28. juillet 2011 10:45
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Philippe Blanchard
> Subject: re: [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations

Dear members of the list 
> 
> 
> Philippe wrote :
> < we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).>
> 
> I'm surprised to find these orgs under a "civil society label". Some complementary comments are needed ... especially related to the sentence
> < the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.>
> 
> Can we, CS representatives in the WSIS process, qualify such a "biased attendance" as a good sign ? For which of our goals ? What I would like to know is how many true CS delegates attended these meetings and which organisatiions they represented. Additionnally it'd be interesting to know how DCs were represented in these meetings : governement, regional orgs, CS and private sector. 
> 
> Perhaps Philippe -or any other delegate on these meetings- could provide us these data. Many thanks in advance.
> 
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT  
>      
> 
>    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Message du 27/07/11 10:11
> > De : "Philippe Blanchard" 
> > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Copie à : "Renate Bloem (Gmail)" 
> > Objet : [governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations
> > 
> > Dear All,
> > 
> > please find hereby some notes I took during the ECOSOC presentations. For reading and archiving purposes, I enclosed the Word document.
> > Kind regards,
> > Philippe
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Data
> > 
> > Author : Philippe Blanchard
> > 
> > Subject : UN Ecosoc plenary session, reports on the « World summit on information society » and « internet governance forum »
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Referential documents
> > 
> > Please refer to the ECOSOC webpages and especially the internet activity related reports :
> > 
> > • Report of the Secretary-General on progress made in the implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society at the regional and international levels (A/66/64 – E/2011/77)
> > 
> > • Report of the Working Group on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (A/66/67-E/2011/79)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 2. Points of interest
> > 
> > I will not paraphrase the content of the two reports and I am just taking the liberty to highlight some elements of interest.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Strong agreement on some stakes both on the citizen level (privacy,…) and the economical level (growth factor, cloud computing…) and on some risks (fraudulent use ; espionage…). But no mention of key elements such as “freedom of speech”, “local vs universal jurisdiction”… I fear those elements are definitely more controversial and will be/must be addressed once the e-governance principles have been set.
> > 
> > · I would personally suggest we work in parallel the meta-level (e-governance) and the fields of application. We are bound to proceed in a co-development scheme rather than a (more historical) sequential process.
> > 
> > · IGF is definitely the opportunity to address this.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The principles of stake-holder participation, multilateral work are clearly understood and (at least) communicated. After the panelists’s presentation, we had the opportunity to have some comments from the civil society (ISOC- Internet Society ; CCI – International Chambers of Commerce).
> > 
> > · Nicolas SEIDLER, Policy Advisor for ISOC : for more information on his report. (seidler at isoc.org)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We were reminded the “sovereignty of States” (not a surprise) and the “necessity to engage in a multistakeholders”. IGF role is unanimously recognized. US representatives praised the “consultative role” and the fact it was “a no-decision body” (to ensure leeway and avoid being struck in some diplomatic vocabulary bargaining).
> > 
> > · However, I would have liked to have some definition of “internet eco-system”. I am afraid there is still a misunderstanding about the existence of a theoretical frontier between IRL (in real-life) and e-life. Cf some comments, for instance on “internet is a global facility” from a State representative (Venezuela, I think)
> > 
> > · Some confusion between “e-governance” and “internet governance” also appeared in floor comments, following the reports presentation.
> > 
> > · Some demands to extend IGF role (CUBA) and a request from the Working group (India, Brasil and RSA- South Africa) to benefit from a “official platform”. I am not sure if it was complementary to IGF or not. This platform would support more effectively the developing countries actions and would bring up “processes to enhance collaboration”.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Points of interest (cont’d)
> > 
> > We were told that Key performance indicators have been agreed upon by the CSTD. I think this is key and would suggest these are shared and monitored by all the stake-holders and followers. (but it is probably my “If you cannot measure it, it is just a hobby” mindset J ).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I am afraid network neutrality was only mentioned once and I hope I wasn’t listening carefully enough.
> > 
> > · For me this element is definitely key. Yes I understand both the political and economical stakes… but it is core.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > We were also told that IGF Executive Coordinator (Markus Kummer’s previous position) should be soon filled. No deadlines announced yet.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Conclusion
> > 
> > Very interesting and informative session. I understood the meeting room was slightly more packed on the previous days, with more politically sensitive discussions but the attendance was fairly high. And that is definitely a good sign.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I would like to take the opportunity to thank twice Mrs Renate BLOEM:
> > 
> > ü she found the way to get me accredited. And I can swear it was no piece of cake. Despite the confirmation she had beforehand, she had to spend 30 mn securing my access. My accreditation was issued at 10:02 for a meeting starting at 10:00.
> > 
> > ü The discussion we had after the session was really great and she brought challenging food for thought.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Vielen Danke, Renate, du bist wunderbar.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Jul 22, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Philippe,
> > 
> > I have tried to accredit you under CIVICUS, hope it is not too late
> > BTW, this item will only be dealt with on Tuesday, 26 July, 10h00-11h030 
> > Best
> > Renate
> > 
> > Renate Bloem
> > Main Representative
> > Civicus UN Geneva
> > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16
> > Mobile : +41763462310 
> > renate.bloem at civicus.org
> > renate.bloem at gmail.com 
> > skype: Renate.Bloem
> > 
> > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation
> > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa
> > www.civicus.org
> > Read e-CIVICUS, a free weekly newsletter on civil society
> > (http://www.civicus.org/ecivicus-newsletter)
> > 
> > Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Thank you.
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf
> > Of Philippe Blanchard
> > Sent: vendredi, 22. juillet 2011 11:39
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Roland Perry
> > Subject: Re: [governance] ECOSOC
> > 
> > Dear Roland
> > 
> > thank you for the follow-up.
> > I have enquired and unfortunately, only the "usual suspects" :-) can make
> > it.
> > I discovered that the "International NON-Olympic Committee" is welcome
> > whereas the "International Olympic Commitee", despite its UN recognition, is
> > not !!!
> > 
> > I will follow the outcomes through the net.
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > Philippe
> > 
> > On Jul 21, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> > 
> > In message <1D8E4662-5BB4-40E1-9E5E-C8BCB994F2AA at me.com>, at 11:35:13 on
> > Thu, 21 Jul 2011, Philippe Blanchard writes
> > 
> > > Anyone knows the access condition for public viewing ?
> > 
> > I have a feeling you have to be [a government or] ECOSOC accredited.
> > 
> > http://csonet.org/index.php?menu=113
> > 
> > Several of the 'usual suspects', here, have this.
> > 
> > > creditation.pdf>
> > 
> > ps. It's the CSTD (in effect an ECOSOC subgroup) which is still
> > admitting "WSIS accredited" people, which in practice means 'anyone'.
> > But you would still have to register for that [1] in advance.
> > 
> > [1] http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/ecn162011d1_en.pdf
> > -- 
> > Roland Perry
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > 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, visit:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> > 
> > For all other list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
> > 
> > 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, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> 

> -- 
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
> 
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110801/775fb091/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, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t