[governance] ECOSOC Follow Up

Wed Aug 3 11:33:21 EDT 2011

Dear Wolfgang

On 01/08/11 09:44, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Hi Marilia
> 
> good point and thank you for the analysis. I see two ways how to
> proceed into 2012:

Yes... good inputs Marilia. Your description of the different positions
among governments is actually very polite :) This 'deadlock' that we
find in the CSTD and also in the IGF working group is precisely why I am
not convinced by the argument that we need a new intergovernmental body
- even if it has multi-stakeholder participation - and even if I am not
happy with the IG status quo.

> 1. we have to develop a more general position in form of a statement
> for the next CSTD meeting (probably in Fall 2011 and then again in
> May 2012) to ask for some clarifications and a greater sustainablity
> with regard to CS involvement in the WSIS follow up related
> activities of the CSTD. We should do this directly and via friendly
> governments.

Referring to my other message, yes, a statement on CS participation
would be good. But substantial CS participation would be even better :)
E.g. in the form of written submissions made beforehand on agenda items.
Also on the WSIS review process - the ITU has an open process on the
10year review.. and I think it is good for CS to give input even if we
are cynical about this.

And this reminds me of something important Wolfgang brought up in the
not too distant past. A CS review based on OUR document!

> 2. My understanding is that the CSTD proposal to enhance the mandate
> of the CSTD IGF Improvement Working Group" was acceptey by ECOSOC. We
> have  five members in this group and they should get a clear mandate
> from the IGC to raise this issue both in informal discussions as well
> as in formal presentations.
> 
> BTW, has anybody more information about the future of this WG? What I
> know is that Switzerland stepped down as chair. There was some
> speculation about Portugal as a new chair, but I heard also
> Philipines and Indonesia had signalled interest. There is no working
> plan for the group and the risk is high that the group will loose
> again a lot of time, playing around the chair position, doing nothing
> substantially and start its work only at the end of the year (after
> the 2nd commitee of the UNGA has finished its debates in New York end
> of November/early December).

Agree. I was extremely disappointed when the US and others, mainly
Europeans, killed a very concrete proposal from India to put timelines
and the election of a working group chair in the resolution that CSTD
sent to India.

Their reasons were procedural, but it seemed pretty clear to me that as
Marilia said, the US is still not in favour of the working group. And,
as they are worried about what it might decide, they would be happier
with no outcome than an outcome that would change the IGF substantially.
> 
> There is certainly an alternative opportunity to kick start the
> process by using the 6th IGF in Nairobi end of September 2011. I do
> not know whether some governments want to do this.

They did not. We proposed that.  And many of them won't be their
either.. which is the really depressing thing. I really don't mind that
they criticise the IGF. I do mind that they don't participate.

> However, if
> nothing is happening with the WG until end of August/early September
> 2011, 

Very optimistic Wolfgang. November is our best case scenario. October
perhaps.. but there are ITU meetings then which means that governments
are busy - most CSTD WG gov reps are the same people that attend ITU
meetings.

> CS could take the lead and to invite the governmental and
> non-governmental members of the WG for an informal meeting to discuss
> both procedural and substantial issues with regard to the future work
> of the WG. We could certainly get a room for 50 or so people for two
> or three hours on Day 3 or 4 and I am sure that more than 50 percent
> of group-members will come to Nairobi. We should announce this in
> advance and mark this as ad-hoc "Informal Multistakeholder
> Consultations (IMC) on the Future of the UN CSTD IGF Improvement
> Working Group".

I like this idea. But should the meeting not be about IGF improvement,
rather than about the CSTD working group? Workshops are good, but this
can be more neutral. And it can also be a good idea for us get broader
CS input.

Anriette

> 
> Best regards
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________ 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
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
____________________________________________________________
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