[governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations

Thu Jul 28 12:53:19 EDT 2011

On Thursday 28 July 2011 04:26 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote:
>
> Dear Philippe and Jean-Louis,
>
> Let me first thank Philippe for his kind words and his report. Just to 
> add: South Africa, on behalf of India and Brazil, made a strong 
> statement in calling for an intergovernmental mechanism for enhanced 
> cooperation, separate from but in close cooperation with the IGF.in
>

While there should be some significant institutional innovations to a 
traditional inter-governmental platform for global IG (some such 
innovations were suggested by my organisation in its submission to the 
consultation on enhanced cooperation in Dec 2010), I find the demand for 
a new platform for democratic global Internet policy making very welcome 
especially in its being conceptualised to be in close cooperation/ 
connection with the IGF.

It is especially so if the IGF can reform itself to be able to channel 
multistakeholder inputs purposively into this new policy making platform 
(and these three countires have indeed sought such improvements in the 
IGF whereas developed countries, along with many civil society actors 
from developing countries, have opposed them).

I completely fail to understand how those who enthusiastically engage 
with OECD kind of inter-governmental poliy-making processes, whose 
processes of multistakeholder input are patently much less open and 
democratic than the above EC-IGF connection scheme, can be against this 
kind of policy making system for the global stage. How do they justify 
it? I know I have asked this question of simple democratic equity and 
fairness several times but I am yet to get a proper answer to it. I 
earnestly hope that those to whom I direct this question will engage 
with it in the open discursive spirit that is the hallmark of civil 
society, and its principle basis of legitimacy.

parminder

> 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.
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110728/c56b5a5c/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