[governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations
Philippe Blanchard
philippe.blanchard at me.com
Thu Jul 28 05:38:08 EDT 2011
Dear Jean-Louis,
I understand your very legitimate concern.
However :
1/ I only mentioned the organisations I was aware of and they were also several participants I did not know previously... Maybe even participants to that list :-9
2/ in terms of appraising the attendance, unless you have the precise headcount, it is only a gross estimate. If I compare with other international meetings, I confirm this was on the right side of the balance.
I would like to stress this was mainly a formal report presentation meeting. Attendance and collaboration are definitely more core in the contribution phases.
Your point is then key regarding the improvement of the participation process and how can we enhance :
1/ data collection, (which taxonomy and ontology ? validity of the sensors..)
2/ knowledge elicitation and formalization of bad / good practices (as I mentioned in the report, which key performance indicators ? And how to make sure that we balance quantitative / qualitative elements, tangibles vs intangibles....)
3/ presentation of the recommendations and arbitrage
4/ Definition of the implementation plan
5/ Implementation and monitoring
6/ feedback and... go straight to number One :-)
For me, as far as I understood, it will be the responsibility of the Internet Governance Forum to set the field of play and make sure the process is as efficient as possible. INclusivity will definitely be key when it comes to Civil society participation and commitment... but we will have to cope with reality constraints...
Regards,
Philippe
On Jul 28, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:
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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110728/c2fca788/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list