[governance] Re: moving more regarding which countries are part of the g77

Miguel Alcaine miguel.alcaine at gmail.com
Mon Feb 28 11:35:16 EST 2011 

Dear all,

When we talk of g77, we should keep in mind that g77 has about 134 countries. Sometimes, a country position may be taken as a g77 position. Labeling positions may contribute to polarization. One of the difficulties g77 has, is to produce consensus which encompasses all countries' interests.

best,

Miguel

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 28, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Just a quick word of thanks to CSers able to participate in the various meetings last week.
> 
> Under let's just say - suboptimal conditions - you all did great, bravo.
> 
> As to all the time wasted on procedural/political minutia - as McTim might note - hey it's the UN, what did you expect? ; )
> 
> Lee
> 
> PS: Seriously, it seems a requirement of UN negotiations that the first day (at least) be wasted largely on such matters; only when pressure/fear of going home having accomplished - zip - is in people's minds, does much happen.
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 6:57 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: moving more
> 
> Yes, I also am aware that CSTD WG is not open nor bottom-up.
> But then phrasing it as "top-down" is also somewhat mis-leading to us.
> I agree it is a closed meeting, but there was not discussion about that
> WG be under Chatham House rule. There were several observers
> who are not identified.
> 
> Yet, one of the reasons why I have proposed that at least one of
> two IGC coordinators be in the CSTD WG, (as well as MAG), is to have
> better liaison between IGC and WG or MAG which were not there at the
> MAG. Thus on the one hand I feel obliged to liaise, report, between the
> two. I did not specifically said or confirmed that myself and other WG 4 members
> nominated by CS NocCom be the "representatives" of IGC. In fact, most
> of us mostly acted as in their own capacity unless we mention specifically
> that this is the IGC (even not CS)'s common position.
> 
> So I am of course more responsible to represent the IGC as the coordinator
> than the other four members. But still I think I could make my informal
> comments on matters where IGC itself does not have strong consensus,
> as my own views inside WG meetings. This is my understanding.
> 
> As others said, there seems to be the consensus in the WG that we should
> respect that IGF keeps its open and MSH nature including a good deal of
> bottom-up process of shaping it. Not for the decision making of Internet
> governance in general, as there is no such consensus, but at
> least for the making of IGF, including MAG, be open, bottom-up, transparent
> as much as possible. [not for the operating procedure of CSTD].
> 
> The WG did not agree with making a small drafting group.
> For work efficiency, I thought it is better than doing all by
> open-ended plenary meeting. But we agreed that we will
> seek for public input very openly, then compile these into
> the draft report and will work through it to make final report.
> Even when proposing the "drafting group" the intention is that
> it is an editorial group and will not create new text, but rather
> just compile inputs from all contributions.
> 
> As for the Outcome of the IGF, it is true some proposed to bring them
> to CSTD/ECOSOC/GA at CSTD WG meeting, but there was no substantial
> discussion about this proposal, and there is no consensus at all.
> Bring outcomes to relevant bodies, instead were proposed, including
> that of Brazil:
> 
> "IGF shall have outcomes and these outcomes shall be sent to relevant
> international organizations related to Internet Governance issues. The
> outcomes of IGF meetings shall be considered to be a non-binding,
> non-negotiated text that will reflect convergence where they exist and
> capture alternative options where there are differing views and
> alternative suggestions."
> 
> So, there was no  "G77" position or move at the WG meeting. I have not
> seen "IBSA" join work either. India and Brazil were not always in the
> same position. South Africa was even not there.
> 
> I understand Avri's and others' concern that the "outcome oriented" be
> crafted into such that it ultimately gives authority to UN on any or all
> Internet Governance policy issue decision making. But, at least myself
> and other CS members inside CSTD WG do not have such intention
> nor idea. Yes, Parminder and I have different views on this, and he is
> be more positive to bring public policy issues into more formal UN decision
> making policy process, but still, he did not go that far.
> 
> izumi
> 
> 2011/2/28 Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>:
>> Hi all
>> 
>> I agree completely that the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements is
>> not bottom-up :)
>> 
>> What was encouraging at the Montreux meeting were three things:
>> 
>> * the importance giving to the 'open consultation' process in preparing
>> IGF meetings, and also in getting input for the working group's report
>> 
>> * agreement on the IGF's basic character as a forum for dialogue on
>> policy, not for negotiating policy
>> 
>> * agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation
>> 
>> The points we agreed on as 'key elements for the working group's report'
>> will be opened to the IGF community at large.
>> 
>> This will happen in the next few days.  I think that EVERYONE on this
>> list should respond in their individual, and institutional capacities.
>> 
>> Anriette
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Governance mailing list