[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Civil Society Draft Prioritie s Document

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi all,

Many thanks to the CT working group, and specially to Bill and Sally 
for the second draft, sent on July 12.
I'm grateful that some of my comments have been taken into account, 
specially on the governance and access and infrastructure issues. 
However, I still feel very uncomfortable with :

1/ The reference to the CoE cybercrime Convention (in the "information 
security issue" section). I fully agree with Chris Zielinski argument 
about this point.

2/ In the same section, the references to OECD guidelines and to the 
proposal from the European Parliamen are inappropriate for the same 
reasons. Moreover, the reference to "best practices" seems inadequate : 
we need neither "best practices", nor "codes of good conducts". We need 
rights and we need them being enforced.

3/ On the last section (Attention to other regional and international 
processes), it's very disappointing that the very important demand of 
"observatory committee" still does has, as one of its defined tasks, 
the one I proposed to add, which is : "propose supervisory mechanisms 
and indicators for human rights and sustainable democratic development 
compliance in the information and communication society". Without this 
supervision mechanism and the establishment of indicators, this 
committee would only be yet another grandiose but useless idea. 
Finally, I see that this observatory committee is still in the second 
draft document a "multistakeholder" committee. I doubt this would lead 
to successful work. We can see the results of so-called 
"multistakeholders" initiatives : ICANN, WSIS, and others.

In any case, it is great that a draft document has been made available 
in time, again thanks to the CT group. I'm sure we will have enough 
time during Paris meeting to discuss it again and clarify the many 
remaining issues so as to reach the widest consensus in plenary 
sessions, specially in light of the developments of the draft 
declaration and action plan that will be seen in Paris.

Meryem

Le samedi, 12 juil 2003, à 20:24 Europe/Paris, karen banks a écrit :

> hi chris
>
> the reason i feel it should be there is that is is really the ONLY 
> concrete activity mentioned in the gov action plan re infosec - and it 
> is one which is being advocated aggresively throughout the world, 
> which governments are supporting.. the rest is frankly, a huge mish 
> mash of yet more principles and grandiose schemes..
>
> at which point would be oppose such an action?
>
> karen
>
> At 07:16 PM 7/12/2003 +0200, zielinskic at who.int wrote:
>> Karen,
>>
>> I think that taking issue with just this one (out of a number) of 
>> misguided
>> conventions by the CoE and other bodies would be a mistake. It would 
>> be best
>> to point out the risks of such legislation in general, rather than 
>> aim at
>> specific items. That's why I would leave the words "Council of 
>> Europe" out
>> of the paper altogether.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Chris Zielinski
>> STP, CSI/EGB/WHO
>> Avenue Appia, CH-1211
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> Tel: 004122-7914316 or mobile (UK) 0044797-10-45354