<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Having worked with ITU on the WSIS process
for several years, please allow me the following comments : </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">When Mr. Touré says that "ITU
is the most inclusive organization of the UN family", he is not completely
wrong. ITU is much older than the UN (ITU was founded in 1865) and has
a long tradition of working with business entities, which goes back to
the first part of the last century. The way business entities (and also
some few not-for-profit entities) cooperate with ITU is through "sector
membership". Sector membership is very different from the way NGOs
participate in other UN Agencies and Programs (and that is mostly where
the misunderstanding comes from). Sector membership is costly (the sector
members pay a fee, which can be waived under certain circumstances, e.g.
for not-for-profit entities) and can participate in Working Groups. Sector
members have therefore the possibility to influence decision-making at
the beginning of the process. Sector members are ready to pay the fee because
it is in their own business interest (e.g. in the standardisation field).
No other UN Agency or Programme has such a close cooperation with business
(except perhaps in ILO, where you have tripartite representation, from
Government, from employers associations and from employees associations/trade
unions. ILO also is not a typical UN Agency, it is also older than the
UN). </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In the UN, which is at its basis a strictly
intergovernmental organization, NGOs and civil society were accepted since
its creation as "observers". The consultative status of NGOs
with ECOSOC goes back to the forties of the last century*. Other UN Agencies,
Programmes and funds have introduced similar "observer status"
for NGOs, take UNESCO and UNCTAD as examples. The "observer"
status is different from the "Sector member" status in ITU, or
from the tripartite partner status in ILO. The classical observer status
in the UN is usually limited to Plenary and subcommittee meetings (WSIS
made some exceptions to this). NGOs can make written inputs and on some
occasions take the floor during the Plenary, but they are not "negotiating"
and cannot participate in closed meetings and in working groups etc.
(The Council Working Group mentioned below had commissioned a study on
how other UN Agencies work with civil society, the study is at </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/Meeting-Documents/January/WG-Study-04-02-rev.2secretariat-UN-report-final.doc
) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mr. Fullsack knows very well that at
the last Plenipotentiary Meeting in Antalya, ITU has created a "Council
Working Group on the Study on the Participation of all relevant stakeholders
in ITU activities related to WSIS". The main question is if ITU should,
besides the possibilities of sector membership, introduce something similar
to an "observer" status for civil society, especially in the
field of WSIS implementation. There are many questions related to such
a status, especially compared to the ITU "membership" status
of today, which in some respect gives a stronger position to the "sector
member" than possibly to a mere "observer". But I agree
tha the "sector member" status does not exactly fit for civil
society entities that do defend general societal interest like Human
Rights, Access to Knowledge, ICTs for Development etc.. Such NGOs
are used to the "observer" status in other UN entities, which
is free of cost, and do not see any interest in paying a fee for becoming
ITU sector members. They do not want to participate in working groups,
they want to speak out in Plenary meetings. They consider their participation
as political, not technical. The Council Working group is under the
chairmanship of Argentian and Switzerland. We shall see what proposals
are brought forward by the Working group to the 2009 Council Meeting. (For
more information, see http://www.itu.int/council/groups/stakeholders/ and
the powerpoint presentation at http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2007/civilsocietyconsultation/Documents/Civil_Society_and_ITU.ppt
)</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mr. Fullsack complains further that
he was sent out of the room at the beginning of a WSIS facilitators meeting
last September in ITU. This statement is misleading. I am not sure if Mr.
Fullsack realized that he wanted to participate as an observer at
the yearly <b>UNGIS</b> meeting. He was in fact kindly asked by Mr. Touré
to leave the room. The UN Group on the Information Society is a meeting
where UN Agencies discuss and coordinate the UN-systemwide implementation
of WSIS. UNGIS does not (or should not) deal with Action Line Facilitation.
UNGIS was created by the Chief Executive Board of the UN (where civil society
is never present, not even government observers would be allowed) and is
an internal administrative steering meeting. It is the kind of meeting
where one Agency can tell another Agency that it is unhappy with the performace
etc. These kind of internal steeering committee meetings (where you
can also wash dirty laundry) have never been open to observers, and
it is wrong to take the example of a traditionally closed meeting as proof
of ITUs reluctance to deal with civil society. In my view, ITU is not reluctant
to deal with civil society, the problem is different: As a techical
organization, ITU never felt the need to create an observer status for
<b>political</b> participation of civil society. But <b>where Mr. Fullsack
is correct</b>: Internet Governance is a highly<b> political </b>theme,
and if ITU wants to play a role in this field, it will have to open up
to civil society and to create a format for meaningful participation of
civil society representatives. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Finally, where I cannot agree with Mr.
Fullsack is on the "non-inclusiveness" of WSIS. I think that
Mr. Touré's statement about the inclusiveness of WSIS is correct. WSIS
was the second UN Summit to accredit civil society <b>and</b> business
(the first Summit that accredited business entities was the Monterrey Summit
on Financing for Development). Besides the more than 3000 NGOs in consultative
status with ECOSOC, which had automatic accreditation to WSIS, Governments
accredited more than 1'300 civil society entities, including University
Institutes (a novelty, no other UN Summit had ever accredited academic
instititions) and local authorities (e.g. the city of Geneva, or the city
of Lyon, also a novelty for UN Summits). At both Summits, in Geneva and
in Tunis, there were about as many participants from civil society as from
Governments. For the first time in the history of UN Summits, Summit working
documents carried the inputs from Governments and from observers in the
same document, often on the same page. My guess is that 30 to 50% of the
final text of the Summit outcome documents originate somewhere in civil
society inputs, and were taken over by Government representatives in one
or the other way (it is impossible to trace every idea to its roots in
a negotiation process as complicated as WSIS). I don't think that this
kind of large inputs from civil society took place at the Johannesburg
or the Stockholm Summits. Also, in no other UN Summit, observers (including
civil society representatives) spoke directly in the Summit segement, after
heads of State and Government (usually, observers speak in UN Summits
in the high-level or in the ministerial segment of a Summit). You find
some more explanations about participation of observers in WSIS on the
WSIS website at http://www.itu.int/wsis/basic/multistakeholder.html and
in an interview I gave to Reza Salim from Bangladesh in Summer 2008, published
recently at http://www.iconnect-online.org/News/wsis-and-beyond-a-reality-check.
And yes, ITU was indeed the lead agency for the preparations of WSIS, but
the way civil society was handled in WSIS was mostly decided by the WSIS
Intergovernmental Bureau, where the decisive influence did not come from
ITU, but from the two PrepCom Presidents, Adama Samassékou and Janis Karklins.
</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Charles Geiger </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">former Executive Director, WSIS</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">* if you look at the list of entities
in consultative status with ECOSOC, at http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf
, you will see that some entities in general consultative status have this
status since 1946 or 1947! </font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td width=40%><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>"jlfullsack"
<jlfullsack@wanadoo.fr></b> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Sent by: plenary-bounces@wsis-cs.org</font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">01.12.2008 10:40</font>
<table border>
<tr valign=top>
<td bgcolor=white>
<div align=center><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to<br>
Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary@wsis-cs.org></font></div></table>
<br>
<td width=59%>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">To</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><plenary@wsis-cs.org></font>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">cc</font></div>
<td>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<div align=right><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Subject</font></div>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif">[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw: [governance] RE:
ITU and ICANN - a loveless forced marriage</font></table>
<br>
<table>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td></table>
<br></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2><tt>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response
goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses
intended for specific people]<br>
<br>
Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation
of this message!<br>
_______________________________________<br>
<br>
</tt></font><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3>----- Original Message ----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href=mailto:jlfullsack@wanadoo.fr><font size=3 color=blue><u>jlfullsack</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>To:</b> </font><a href=mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>governance@lists.cpsr.org</u></font></a><font size=3>
; </font><a href=mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu><font size=3 color=blue><u>David
Allen</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><b>Sent:</b> Monday, December 01, 2008 10:30 AM</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] RE: ITU and ICANN - a
loveless forced marriage</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">This statement of the ITU Secretary general
is by far less questionable than a lot of other statements made in this
long speach at the Cairo ICANN meeting. But unfortunately it is'nt complete.
He forgot to mention ITU's responsibilities in that issue. At least in
the time-wasting way of leading the whole post-WSISI process, of which
IGF is just one part.</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">As for me, I took my time for reading the
whole stuff and found a lot of other, even more questionable statements
: </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">- Mr Touré was confusing the respective role
of ITU and ICANN, and what's more, their statutes !</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">- "It (the ITU) is the most inclusive
organization of the UN family". May I recall that I was waiting on
the door before the beginning of the ITU-Unesco chaired WSIS facilitators
meeting last september in Genva. I asked both chairs (Mr Khan and Mr Touré)
for being allowed -as a WSIS accredited membrer of CS- to only sit in the
room for listening. Whereas the Unesco chair agreed with a smile, the ITU
refused firmly ! Unless to say I was angry, having been for more than twenty
years an ITU senior expert (in both development and standardisation sectors).
Moreover, nowhere we find a clear explanation on this "CS inclusiveness"
of the ITU : who are the these "CS members" ? How much do they
pay, and on which criteria are they selected ? </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">- "But it (WSIS) was the most inclusive
Summit ever". That's not true Mr Touré : the Jo'burg Earth Summit
(and the following Stockholm Summit) was far more and really CS inclusicve,
and the whole press, national, regional and international papers, regularly
reported on it. This wasn't the case of the WSIS, despite desperate attempts
of its "communicators" the fist of which the ITU. </font><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">-" Our members need to be informed about
those things" (Internet of things, IPv6) "And we are doing that.
The resolution from the WTSA last week, taken by our 191 member states
and 700 companies, private companies , is to study and encourage the implementation
of IPv6. I believe this is a concern for all of us."</font><font size=1 face="Arial">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial">OK but, Please, where is the CS in this
process ? We need social and economic impacts to be studied in relation
to new technologies as soon as at the early stage of their design and their
actual impact is is to be assesed preferably before they are deployed.
This applies for both developed and developing countries (even more stringently
in the latter). We need a more serious and profound job to be done in this
field and this isn't the scope of ITU mandate ! Where are we, the
WSIS CS, in this field ? IGF is just one of these paramount issues and
is therefore relevant in the open and urgent debate. </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Wolgang raised the question of CS inclusion
in the ITU after this speach. That was fine. But once Hamadoun Touré had
delivered his biased (and partly false) response, our CS fellow didn't
question the ITU Head. It was Ambassador Karklins who answered him : "It
was very interesting to listen to you. You are on the record, and I believe
that many member states who are listening to you will bring what you have
said to the council in ITU". Thank you, Janis Karklins !</font><font size=1 face="Arial">
</font><font size=2 face="Arial">This is the point the CS participating
member(s) had just missed ! </font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">All the best</font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">Jean-Louis Fullsack</font><font size=1 face="Arial">
</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=2 face="Arial">(</font><font size=3>----- Original Message
----- </font>
<br><font size=3><b>From:</b> </font><a href=mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu><font size=3 color=blue><u>David
Allen</u></font></a><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3><b>To:</b> </font><a href=mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org><font size=3 color=blue><u>governance@lists.cpsr.org</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Cc:</b> </font><a href="mailto:gov@wsis-gov.org"><font size=3 color=blue><u>gov@wsis-gov.org</u></font></a><font size=3>
</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, November 30, 2008 4:57 AM</font>
<br><font size=3><b>Subject:</b> [governance] RE: ITU and ICANN - a loveless
forced marriage</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>At 4:32 PM +1100 11/9/08, Ian Peter wrote:</font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">The telling statement from ITU
being "I am personally of the opinion that the IGF is continuously
going round in circles and avoiding issues - it is becoming more and more
a waste of time."</font>
<br><font size=3> </font>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">Interested in analysis of how we
can avoid this.</font>
<br><font size=3><br>
One suggestion:</font>
<br><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGF%20multi-stakeholderism%20-%20D%20Allen.pdf"><font size=3 color=blue><u>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions-Sept_2008/IGF%20multi-stakeholderism%20-%20D%20Allen.pdf</u></font></a>
<br><font size=3><snip></font>
<br>
<br><font size=3 face="Times New Roman">My fear here is that the outcomes
if IGF doesn't succeed in addressing the real issues are worse than those
...</font>
<br><font size=3><br>
<snip></font>
<br><font size=3 color=#000080 face="Times New Roman">Ian Peter</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Sorry for the delay in responding,</font>
<br><font size=3>David</font>
<p>
<hr>
<p><font size=3>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</font><font size=2><tt>_______________________________________________<br>
Plenary mailing list<br>
Plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary<br>
</tt></font>
<p>