[governance] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC reviewing WSIS follow up and implementation: CSTD, UNGIS, ALF, IGF, GAID

[William Drake]

Hi,

On 7/19/07 10:14 AM, "karen banks" <karenb at gn.apc.org> wrote:

> (parminder, you may want to include a copy of the request for info, dated)

I agree
 
>> We request ECOSOC to ensure that the multistakeholder principle in
>> WSIS follow-up is fully adhered to as per WSIS documents, in general
>> spirit, and in specific mandates as in case of the process towards
>> enhanced cooperation, where as mentioned above, the WSIS injunction
>> for multistakeholder involvement is clearly not being complied with.
> 
> eg.. are we asking ECOSOC to ensure that the CSTD ensures MS
> principles are adhered to in any (and all) consultations related to
> wsis followup? the CSTD is the entry point for consultation no?
> ECOSOC only receives reports from CSTD no? (or maybe i've got it all wrong)

Yes, although such discussion as there has been on EC (with respect to core
resources, not IO programs being relabeled as EC, like ITU security work) is
not taking place on a multilateral basis in the first place.  Neither ECOSOC
nor CSTD can ensure that the main action is multilateral, much less
multistakeholder.  As such, it might be more encompassing and reflective of
reality to say something like,

We request that the United Nations and all other parties ensure that the
enhanced cooperation process is conducted in a manner that is fully
consistent with the principles of transparency and multistakeholder
participation set forth in the Tunis Agenda. [full stop]

> but you know, i'm not sure i would include text about holding
> consultations at the IGF specifically.. strategically, i think it's
> not the best move.. i would prefer to have *formal* consultations

I agree.  While it would be logistically easier, politically the linkage
would highly problematic for the IGF and would be strongly resisted in
several quarters.  The chances of getting what we're asking for are
exceedingly small anyway, why make the statement bear this additional
burden?

Cheers,

Bill