AW: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet governance
:roles of plenary and governance lists
Bill McIver
mciver at albany.edu
Tue Jan 27 00:20:31 GMT 2004
All,
I agree with YJ in principle, but
it's clear from what Bill, Adam, and others
who know the ITU have said, that it's not
likely we can change processes and policies that
have a ~139 year legacy, at least not before the slots fill up
that could be occupied by people from CS.
I think that at minimum we
need to get CS people at the table.
I'm not sure that agree with Jean-Louis that
this is a Content and Themes function.
I think that this is for the governance caucus to work out, but
presumably they will consult the Plenary *if* they are agree
to send a group as representing CS, specifically the positions agreed
upon in the
CS declaration.
Given the time frame, perhaps a mid term function (i.e. beyond this
meeting)
for Content and Themes
would be to coordinate a response from Plenary and
the governance caucus on the issue of participation.
WJM
YJ Park wrote:
>Wolfgang,
>
>Based on what you said, Internet Governance issue should not be handled by a
>group of so-called experts or individuals from now on. Yes, it can be
>handled by experts or individuals but I have doubts about that approach in
>the long term for Civil Society. It is time for WSIS CS to organize more
>agreeable representation and position in forwarding it to the relevant fora
>like the upcoming ITU meeting and UN ICT Task Force meeting.
>
>As you emphasized "stakeholder" approaches, we, Civil Society, as
>independent stakeholder in this Internet Governance debate process should
>not be arbitrarily abused upon the situation. We, civil society, should have
>ability to decide on our own whether we are going to attend or participate
>in this debate like our counterparts, governmnets and private sector
>stakeholders, instead of being decided and told by some authority, ITU in
>this context, whether we can attend or cannot attend upon their situations.
>
>Civil Society in the WSIS was welcomed and encouraged to participate in the
>WSIS debate.
>Civil Society in the WSIS was invited to the upcoming UN Internet Governance
>WG debate.
>
>And then why all of sudden, only limited "invitees" can attend the critical
>meetings like ITU and UN ICT Take Force meeting which will map out the
>upcoming UN Internet Governance WG. To be consistent about Civil Society's
>role in this whole process from WSIS I to WSIS II, we have to express our
>concerns in this upcoming meeting.
>
>YJ
>
>
>
>>Dear all,
>>
>>to avoid more misunderstandings, let me clarify what I wanted to say:
>>
>>1. it is certainly important that the Caucus gets an Image as a "Unit"
>>
>>
>able to act on behalf of one of the main three stakeholders, the civil
>society. Insofar the Caucus has to issue statements which make this clear to
>the two other main stakeholders group, to private sector and governments.
>The other stakeholders want to know basically what "CS" is thinking and not
>what individuals are suggesting.
>
>
>>2. Among members of the "governmental stakeholder group" and members of
>>
>>
>the "private sector stakeholder group" there are numerous differences. And
>so it is within the "CS stakeholder group". While CS is interested to know
>not only the "governmental consensus", as reflected in the WSIS declaration,
>but also what the positions of different governments (here China there USA,
>here South Africa there France, here Brazil and there Australia etc.) other
>stakeholders are also intersted what individual members of the CS are
>thinking. BTW, such a multidimensional and multilateral positioning and
>exchange of ideas paves the way for potential "rainbow coalitions" on
>certain issues, that is to escape from "cold war constellations".
>
>
>>3. For individual members of the CS IG/ICT Caucus it is important that,
>>
>>
>while they make statements as "indiviuduals" they also make visible their
>relationship to the Caucus. Ohter stakeholders should know, that the CS with
>its diversifeid constituencies, are - after WSIS I - structured, organized
>and have their representative body (like the govenrments have the GAC and
>the private sector has the BICC).
>
>
>>4. I do not underestimate the importance of the forthcoming ITU workshop.
>>
>>
>In contrary, I see it like Adam, as an direct move from ITU to get something
>like the leadership in the new process. And no doubt that Utsumis voice is
>much more heard by Kofi Annan that the voice of the ICC, of ICANN or of one
>of the Co-Chairs of the CS IG ICT Caucus. But i do not believe that the ITU
>plan will work without problems. The ICANN meeting in Roma (in particular
>the meeting of the GAC with ALAC, two days after the Geneva ITU meetingon
>Sunday) is as important as the ITU meeting. And the "IG Forum" on March 25 -
>26, in New York (as part of the UN ICTTF meeting), which is NOT an ITU
>event, has a similar importance. CS and the Caucus should make the voice
>heard in all these meetings both by individual presentations (demonstrating
>knowledge, expertise, innovation etc.) and by joint statements of the Caucus
>(it would be great if always one of the two new co-chairs or a designated
>representative o
>
>
>> f a co-chair could speak "on behalf" of the Caucus).
>>
>>5. My proposal for a change of the ITU constitution (in 2006) is a
>>
>>
>proposal which could be considered as part of a long term strategy. ITU will
>remain one of the main players in the field. In the WSIS declaration the ITU
>role is fixed as a "facilitating role". What "facilitating role" means in
>this context is open for interpretation (and ITU itself tries to fill this
>with substance i.a. by the forthcoming workshop). For CS it is important to
>look into this direction. The problem here is, that the constitutional
>possibilities for CS in the ITU process are more than limited, or lets say,
>close to Zero. Only constitutional members can officially participate in
>processes (and eventually, without any negotiating or voting rights, invited
>individual experts). The proposal from some ITU folks, that CSOs should
>joint ITU under the "private sector membership clause" is unacceptable for
>CS for two reasons: a. CS is different from private sector and b. the
>exorbitant membership fees blo
>
>
>> ck any broader CS participation. One "official proposal" to the ITU could
>>
>>
>be to add the status of "civil society sector member" in the ITU
>constitution with no or very low membership fee. But even under such a
>construction, Jean Louis is right, that legally binding decisions within ITU
>are made by govenments (member states) only. But to have such a status
>within ITU would be for CS a status quo plus.
>
>
>>6. the main thing is that CS is positioning itself for the "Kofi Annan
>>
>>
>Group". We should make clear at a very early stage, that the composition of
>the group has to be balanced. We should quote again and again the wording of
>the WSIS Declaration , which says that the group should include
>"governments, private sector and civil society from developed and developing
>countries and intergovernmental and international organisations". Our
>proposal could be 6 (GOV):6 (PRIV):6 (CS) + 2 (IGO/ITU& WIPO):2
>(IO/ICANN&ITEF) = 22 in total) This would mean 6 CS representatives, three
>from the North (America, Europa, Asia) and three from the South (Africa,
>Latin America and South Pacific/West Asia). If the group is composed along
>this lines (as a group of representatives of stakeholders) the Caucus has to
>play a crucial role.
>
>
>>Von: Fullsack Jean-Louis <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr>
>>An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>Senden: 11:24 AM
>>Betreff: Re: AW: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet
>>
>>
>governance :roles of plenary and governance lists
>
>
>>Thanks Adam for your support and particularly for clarifying the issues on
>>stake.
>>
>>Moreover, Wolgang commits some approximations with the ITU rules (they are
>>based on its Constitution and Convention). Never forget they are decided
>>upon only by Members of States and not by Sector Members. At least up to
>>
>>
>now
>
>
>>!
>>If you want some complementary information you can find it on CSDPTT's
>>website www.csdptt.org (in french), under "Documents".
>>Of course I fully support your suggestions.
>>
>>Friendly yours
>>Jean-Louis Fullsack
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
>>To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
>>Cc: <wolfgang at imv.au.dk>
>>Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:11 PM
>>Subject: Re: AW: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet
>>governance :roles of plenary and governance lists
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I understand Jean Louis points, but we should make a difference
>>>between "informal discussions" and "formal
>>>
>>>
>>negotiations".
>>
>>
>>Wolfgang,
>>
>>With respect, I think you are being naive, and civil society is
>>likely being disadvantaged.
>>
>>I would not go so far as to suggest that people should not
>>participate in the ITU workshop, of course not! And I've no doubts
>>that the civil society participants invited as individuals will
>>continue to represent the same guiding principles we we agreed
>>collectively. And I fully understand that a scholar or some expert (I
>>am not sure of how to describe "expert") invited to a specialist
>>meeting would not want to pretend that their work represents the
>>views of a broader group, and nor would they wish to compromise their
>>personal intellectual enterprise in some misguided effort to reach a
>>consensus with others, and in the context it would be as
>>inappropriate of us to ask. ("misguided" because Internet
>>Governance
>>is not like many of the other thematic issues CS is concerned with,
>>we have no base agreement even among ourselves on what it means.)
>>
>>But I think we are also missing a very important opportunity to make
>>clear that civil society is an equal player (partner/stakeholder) in
>>all events organized as official/semi-official events of WSIS. It is
>>just wrong to dismiss this workshop as some minor event that does not
>>matter in the WSIS process, that civil society can somehow skip it.
>>Utsumi is Secretary General of WSIS, ITU the lead agency and
>>secretariat. Utsumi has called this workshop to begin to address one
>>of the two main outcomes of the Geneva Summit. Writing as Secretary
>>General of the ITU and Secretary General of WSIS, he says this quite
>>clearly in a recent letter discussing the state of WSIS, from the
>>success Geneva to our hopes for Tunis (etc etc.) (on the Summit
>>website <http://www.itu.int/wsis/utsumi2.html>) He wrote:
>>
>> "The Geneva phase also identified two major issues to be resolved
>>under the auspices of UN Secretary General, namely Internet
>>governance and financing mechanisms. To contribute to the discussion
>>on Internet governance, ITU will organize a workshop on 26 - 27
>>February in Geneva, which provides a forum for exchanging views on
>>definitions, viewpoints, visions and analytical studies on Internet
>>governance .
>>
>> I look forward to working with the many stakeholders involved in
>>this exciting and important undertaking. In particular, I am pleased
>>to begin working closely with Tunisia, the host country of the second
>>phase as we prepare for November 2005.
>>
>>Mr. Yoshio Utsumi"
>>
>>
>>Civil society needs to be represented at this meeting, by people
>>selected by us, and I hope that you will help us try think how we can
>>achieve this. Of course money is a problem.
>>
>>Note, the first prepcom for the Tunis phase will be held in the first
>>half of this year,
>><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_single-en-1164.asp>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>At this point and in this workshop there is no need to speak with
>>>"one voice" as "official representative" of a
>>>
>>>
>>"stakeholder" group.
>>
>>
>>>The participating governments will have many different voices
>>>(united to a high degree by their understanding of "state
>>>sovereignty"), the participating private sector members will have
>>>different voices (united to a high degree by their understanding of
>>>"free market") and so "civil society" will have
>>>
>>>
>>different voices
>>
>>
>>>(united to a high degree by their understandiong of "bottom
>>>
>>>
>>up",
>>
>>
>>>"openess" and "transparency").
>>>
>>>The problem with the ITU workshop is that ITU has only governments
>>>and private sector as members. There is no category of civil society
>>>membership. Probably the ITU Workshop is a good opportunity, to
>>>invite ITU, to start a discussion on the introduction of a new
>>>category of membership in the organisation (afzer WSIS has more or
>>>less officially recognized civil society as an "important
>>>stakeholder"" / Article 49 of the WSIS Declaration).
>>>
>>>I remmeber the long debate before Kyodo 1994, when the concept of
>>>the "big M´s" (governments) and "small M´s" (private
>>>
>>>
>>sector) was
>>
>>
>>>developed. It was further developped by Minneapolis 1998. After
>>>Marrakesh 2002, governments and private secor are de facto rather
>>>equal in the ITU.
>>>
>>>With the next ITU Plenipotentiary two years away (2006), this could
>>>be a right moment to challenge the limited openess of ITU, to
>>>propose a change of the ITU constitution and to introduce a third
>>>category of ITU membership for CSOs.
>>>
>>>And do not forget, the ITU workshop is only one event in an
>>>exploding long series of official or semi-official positioning
>>>seminars around the globe to prepare for the "big thing", the
>>>
>>>
>>Kofi
>>
>>
>>>Annan IG Group.
>>>
>>>Best wishes
>>>
>>>wolfgang
>>>
>>>Original Nachricht--
>>>Von: Fullsack Jean-Louis <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr>
>>>An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>>Senden: 23.01.2004
>>>Betreff: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet
>>>governance :roles of plenary and governance lists
>>>
>>>Sorry, Wolfgang, Adam and others
>>>Once more the ITU Secretary general has selected his interlocutors. This
>>>
>>>
>>is
>>
>>
>>>unacceptable for the Civil Society.
>>>If the CS is to participate as a speeking partner in these "panel
>>>discussions" we -the CS Plenary- ought to be informed previously
>>>
>>>
>>about
>>
>>
>>>the
>>>content and rationale of the CS contributions and/or position. And we
>>>
>>>
>>-the
>>
>>
>>>CS Plenary- are to designate our representative(s) accordingly.
>>>No closed doors negociations on behalf of the CS and please no
>>>"welcome" for
>>>Utsumi's nominal "invitations".
>>>Jean-Louis Fullsack
>>>CSDPTT
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "AIZU" <aizu at anr.org>
>>>To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>;
>>>"Governance" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 1:02 PM
>>>Subject: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Internet governance
>>>:roles of plenary and governance lists
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I also received an invitation from ITU a few hours ago, and
>>>> am trying to modify my schedule to go.
>>>>
>>>> I fully agree with Vittorio that we should coordinate our
>>>>
>>>>
>>>participation.
>>>
>>>
>>>> izumi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 11:04 04/01/21 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>>>> >wolfgang at imv.au.dk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>ha scritto:
>>>
>>>
>>>> >> Thanks Adam & Jeanette,
>>>> >> this is good step forward.
>>>> >> What do you think about a Caucus Website?
>>>> >
>>>> >Actually, I was tasked with preparing it in Geneva, and I
>>>>
>>>>
>>have
>>
>>
>>>started
>>>
>>>
>>>> working. I stopped when the discussion on our name & domain
>>>>
>>>>
>>name
>>
>>
>>>went
>>>
>>>
>>>> nowhere, but if we can accept to live with the name Adam registered
>>>>
>>>>
>>on
>>
>>
>>>his
>>>
>>>
>>>> own (gov-net.org), I think I can come up with an initial site by
>>>>
>>>>
>>the
>>
>>
>>>next
>>>
>>>
>>>> weekend. At least, I hope so.
>>>> >
>>>> >> I think the letter to Kofi Annanエs office is as
>>>>
>>>>
>>urgent as
>>
>>
>>>a
>>>letter to
>>>
>>>
>>>> Utsumi. It should be short letters. Could you write a first draft?
>>>> >
>>>> >Support. I think our new coordinators should manage the agenda
>>>>
>>>>
>>and
>>
>>
>>>get
>>>
>>>
>>>> deliverables done :)
>>>> >
>>>> >> Concerning the letter to Utsumi, we should take note in
>>>>
>>>>
>>this
>>
>>
>>>letter
>>>
>>>
>>>> (and welcome), that some Caucus members has been invited by him in
>>>>
>>>>
>>>their
>>>
>>>
>>>> personal capacity as experts and than propose three other names. As
>>>>
>>>>
>>far
>>
>>
>>>as
>>>
>>>
>>>> I know Milton and Betrand has been invited officially.
>>>> >
>>>> >I got an "early notice of an invitation" yesterday
>>>>
>>>>
>>evening.
>>
>>
>>>(So I don't
>>>
>>>
>>>> need a "ticket" from the caucus, I think.)
>>>> >
>>>> >An interesting note is that the invitation says that invited
>>>>
>>>>
>>experts
>>
>>
>>>are
>>>
>>>
>>>> supposed to express their preference on whether they would like
>>>>
>>>>
>>>"to
>>>
>>>
>>>> >either introduce their contributions, make presentations
>>>>
>>>>
>>and/or
>>
>>
>>>> >participate in panel discussions". I think we should
>>>>
>>>>
>>>coordinate
>>>ourselves
>>>
>>>
>>>> so that CS people don't end up all in the panels or all making
>>>> presentations... The agenda is not clear yet, but, if we can, I
>>>>
>>>>
>>think
>>
>>
>>>we
>>>
>>>
>>>> should try to get a CS person in every relevant panel (assuming
>>>>
>>>>
>>that
>>
>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>> organizers will agree, of course...)
>>>> >--
>>>> >.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo vb.
>>>> >Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu.org
>>>> >http://bertola.eu.org/ <-- Vecchio sito, nuovo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>toblog!
>>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >_______________________________________________
>>>> >Plenary mailing list
>>>> >Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>>> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>> > Plenary mailing list
>>>
>>>
>>>> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Plenary mailing list
>>>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Plenary mailing list
>>>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>_______________________________________________
>>Plenary mailing list
>>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Plenary mailing list
>>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Plenary mailing list
>>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
--
Bill McIver
Assistant Professor
School of Information Science and Policy
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, New York 12222
USA
e-mail: mciver at albany.edu
URL: http://www.albany.edu/~mciver
More information about the Plenary
mailing list