[governance] Meeting report ECOSOC presentations

parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Jul 28 13:08:32 EDT 2011 


On Thursday 28 July 2011 10:23 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>
> 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 mean, '..... along with many civil society actors from *developed* 
(and not 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/20110728/392edc87/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