[discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Mon May 19 05:42:33 UTC 2014

It is sometimes challenging to assess progress but I believe that we made some excellent progress at CSTD overall, taking into account it is indeed an intergovernmental organization, but one which allows participation from WSIS accredited entities. Those entities routinely accept participants from their community and let them register.  In the resolution negotiation sessions, we are observers, but speakers are included in the panels and discussions of the overall work of the Commission. In fact, business and civil society both had speakers, as did the technical community. The Commission has a dual focus: STE 4 D and WSIS follow up.
It is important to engage in both, as they are not separable, and I do hope that all on this list care about Science and Technology for Developing Countries, as well as IG/WSIS follow up. BOTH are inter related, and mutually reinforcing. 
And, yes, not everyone is in agreement, but small steps forward often provide building blocks toward sustainable change. 
I am hopeful that CSTD/UNCTAD will do an open forum at IGF in Instanbul which would provide an opportunity for more to learn more about the full nature of the Commission and its work. 


From: nigel.hickson at icann.org
To: nb at bollow.ch; discuss at 1net.org
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 14:56:19 -0700
Subject: Re: [discuss] NETmundial and CSTD mtg

Good evening 
Just for the record; there were representatives from the Technical
Community (as well as Business and Civil Society) at the CSTD; and indeed
present (well most of usŠ) till the close at 23.40 on Friday.  We could
speak, though agree was not a simple process.
On 5/18/14 7:44 AM, "Norbert Bollow" <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>Having followed this process as closely as possible as a remote
>participant (including via very unofficial channel involving copies of
>intermediary versions of the draft outcome document) I agree with this
>important observation by Avri.
>That is exactly what happened, and if we close our eyes to this
>reality, we are just fooling ourselves.
>Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> But I argue that at the end of the last day,
>> in the last discussions,
>> in the bargaining over the final wording:
>> some footing was more equal than others.
>>     At 17:07 17/05/2014, Avri Doria wrote:
>>     >My take:
>>     >was not  
>>     "Some of us, myself included, are dismayed at the fact that some
>>     of the corporations used their wealth based power to sway the
>>     outcome document at the very end of the discussion, but that
>>     happens in the multilateral world as well, just less visibly and
>>     without any chance for other stakeholders to do anything to
>>     counter it."
>discuss mailing list
>discuss at 1net.org

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140519/ac9359d3/attachment.html>

More information about the discuss mailing list