[governance] IGF and Enhanced Cooperation

[Adam Peake]

>Agree completely with this logical sequential interpretation by Avri.


I agree with the logic, but as mentioned, don't 
think the document was drafted with that in mind, 
those last hours were a mess and this was the 
text that was being worked on.  But I wasn't the 
only one on the room and my memory is terrible!

I read 71 and 72 as separate.  If they'd intended 
to be linked there would be text saying so, there 
would be some connecting language 
(furthermore...), and the mandate of the IGF 
would include a reference to enhanced 
cooperation.  The mandate's very clear, a to l. 
Wish I could remember if this was discussed in 
Tunis.

And also Nitin decided it for us.  Both 
paragraphs ask the secretary general to do 
something, Nitin as the special advisor for 
Internet governance said separate and I guess 
that's him speaking for the SG.  So if they are 
to be linked now it would be the SG or his proxy 
that does it.

Adam



>Anriette
>
>
>On 28/05/2012 15:10, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>  On 28 May 2012, at 02:23, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
>>
>>>  Leaving aside for a moment the subsequent 
>>>UNGA resolution on the matter (but noting that 
>>>even though, strictly speaking, we are not 
>>>talking about binding international law, the 
>>>principle of "lex posterior" could apply) I 
>>>would be curious to know your views on which 
>>>passages of the WSIS texts could lead to such 
>>>conclusion.
>>
>>  I think I may have already sent this to this 
>>list at some point, but it bears repeating 
>>often.
>>
>>  In terms of my personal opinion, I think the 
>>Tunis Agenda actually places responsiblity for 
>>the Enhanced Cooperation with the Forum. 
>>  As I read the Tunis Agenda text,
>>
>>  - 67 calls for a forum in a general sense,
>>  - 68 calls for the equal participation of governments,
>>  - 69 call for enhanced cooperation
>>  - 70 calls for the participation of existing 
>>IG organizations and creation of principles,
>>  - 71 calls for UNSG initiation of a 
>>multistakeholder process on enhanced 
>>cooperation with yearly status reports and
>>  - 72 defines the forum called for in 67.
>>
>>  In other words the entire discussion is 
>>bracketed by the notion of a forum.  It is 
>>called for, it is described, one task is 
>>brought out more than any other, and then they 
>>get into the nitty gritty of the forum called 
>>for in 67.  In any case it is certain that the 
>>TA called for the process of EC, whether we 
>>argue it is in or out of the context of the 
>>IGF, that it must also be a multistakeholder 
>>process: from 71: "... should commence a 
>>process towards enhanced cooperation involving 
>>all stakeholders,"
>>
>>  avri
>
>--
>------------------------------------------------------
>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.igcaucus.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/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 --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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