[WSIS CS-Plenary] Fw: [CS Bureau] Report from Tunisia (here is the attachment)

[Alan G. Alegre]

For those on this list who are n digest mode or cannot receive attachments,
I copied and pasted below the attachment of my last note which is the Report
from Tunisia by several diligent people in the CS Bureau (Viola, Robert,
Renata + Louise).

=========================

Report on the Transition Period between phase 1 and 2

Table of contents

General Summary

Informal meetings of Civil Society Bureau representatives

Introduction

Participation
1st March 2004
2nd March 2004
3rd March 2004

Attachments:
Document 1: Note on the Informal Meeting for the 2nd Phase of the WSIS
Tunis, 2-3 March 2004
Document 2: Message sent by Nick Moraitis about the evaluation / lessons
learned 10
Document 3: Informal meetings in Tunisia

=============

Overview

The Tunisian Governments invited the Governmental Bureau, the CS Bureau and
CCBI. About 100 participants (of whom some 25 from Tunisia) met from 2 to 3
March at the Palace Hotel in Gammarth, North of Tunis, for this informal
brainstorming session. Among the participants were members of the various
Bureaus: Governmental --which is still in the process of assigning six
members from each of five regions for phase 2-- CS, Private Sector, IGOs
representatives and members of the Executive Secretariat. In addition, a
number of Officials and special guests were invited by Tunisia. They all had
the same badges, which designated them just as 'Participants'.

As such, they were welcomed by the Minister of Transport, Communication and
Technology of Tunisia, Sadok Rabah, who in his opening address announced the
creation of a Trust Fund for the “meaningful participation” of Civil Society
in the second phase up to the Summit in Tunis. This initiative is a positive
response to the request made by ES/CSD (Alain Clerc) to the host country for
Phase 2. The Tunisian response indicated a clear commitment to facilitate
civil society participation in Phase 2.

The ITU Secretary General, Mr. Utsumi, followed to explain that this meeting
served as a kick-off for the second phase and asked participants to
brainstorm around three sections: "the implementation of the Geneva action
plan", "expected results of the second phase of the WSIS" and "the process
of the second phase of WSIS". For this, he distributed a draft Road Map to
Tunis, in form of an organizational chart focusing on the information flow /
process. While the document was intended to be a helpful tool, it turned out
to be puzzling to some participants.

Participants then broke into three (language) groups (French, English and
Bilingual) and had during the two days freely flowing discussions on the
three discussion points. After each session, they reported back to the
Plenary. Rapporteurs from the three Groups consisted of members of
Governments, CS and IGOs. The three sessions were dedicated to brainstorming
on the following issues:
Session 1: What should be the substance and the issues to be dealt with in
Phase II
Session 2: What are the expected results?
Session 3: How should the process be structured?

At the end, a report (no official status) was assembled, consisting of a
synthesis of the various notes taken by rapporteurs. This report is
available on the ITU and various other websites (see
http://www.smsitunis2005.com/plateforme/index.php?lang=en and also in
attachment 1 of the present document).

Some areas of reflection included:
1. What form will have any document created for the Tunis Summit? Will it be
compilation of reports on implementation / deepening of the Geneva Plan of
Action / compilation of best practices / a political document of commitments
for Heads of States to sign / announcement of Partnership programs etc.?
2. What is the process for phase 2? Suggestions were made for more thematic
preparatory process, others insisted on regional preparatory meetings and
yet others to combine the two. The latter suggested that regions ought to
determine their thematic priorities. The Secretariat would establish some
guidelines. CS participants, particular from Africa, insisted to demystify
WSIS and the Plan of Action and make it chewable for and owned by grassroots
organizations.

The meeting was well organized, had an atmosphere of warmth and hospitality
and was remarkable in the total acceptance of CS as a fully accepted
partner, providing suggestions at an equal level with all other actors. How
long this will last remains to be seen, when we come to an Official PrepCom
which will follow the same rules and procedures as in WSIS phase 1.
As of yet, no decision was taken on whether the meeting in the first half of
2004 will be a PrepCom (which means that it would include new
accreditations) or an informal meeting. This meeting is to be held any time
between the end of April and beginning of July. Also not clear is whether
this meeting is to be held in Tunis or Geneva.


CS brainstorming meetings

The representatives of the Bureau present in Tunis met at the end of every
day (1st, 2nd and 3rd March 2004). Those meetings were informal and open to
all present. They aimed at exchanging information, brainstorming and share
visions for the future.

1st March 2004

Alain Clerc provided a brief overview about where we stand three months
after the Geneva Summit. An update was provided about ITU, the Executive
Secretariat and the Governmental Bureau. Further, there was a brief
brainstorming about the different possibilities to envisage for the
development of phase 2.

The Tunisian Minister of Transport Communication and Technology, Sadok
Rabah, spent an hour in this meeting to welcome civil society participants
and share some ideas on how the host country could facilitate civil society
participation in Phase 2.

Regarding the institutional functioning of the ES CSD, Alain Clerc indicated
that the mandate given by the state of Geneva came to an end with Phase 1.
In the transition period, many initiatives and contacts were taken to ensure
a follow-up in appropriate conditions. From its part, Tunisia has expressed
the wish to have the same team act as facilitators for civil society for
Phase 2. For that purpose, Tunisia has also committed to second 1.5 persons
as staff to assist the CSD team.

2nd March 2004

In order to provide updated information on the work to be done by the ES,
Charles Geiger, Assistant to Mr Utsumi (who is now altogether: (1) ITU
Secretary General (2) WSIS Secretary General (3) Executive Director of the
WSIS ES), was invited to the meeting.

C. Geiger mentioned that the preparation of phase 2 would happen between
Geneva and Tunis. The governmental Bureau was going to have six
representatives per region, but the final choice had so far only been made
by two (Asia, Latin American & the Caribbean) of the six regions.
Accreditation of new CS entities is now being handled by the Executive
Secretariat, by means of a print-out form available on the official ITU web
site (to be sent in by fax) and no longer through the www.geneva2003.org
site. C. Geiger mentioned that for phase 2 of the WSIS, it would be possible
for civil society to have representatives work within the Secretariat, like
it had been done by Youth in phase 1.

For those three persons who could not attend the meeting of the 1st of March
(R. Guerra, V. Krebs and A. El Zaim), information was given on the
intervention day before of the Minister of Communications (see attachment
one for full list of participants).
The discussion then focused on the challenges of the CSB work in the context
of the Phase 2 scenario, which will be different from Phase 1. Several CS
representatives expressed the need for clear procedures when calling CS
Bureau meetings, transparency and documentation about the working mechanisms
of the CS Bureau.

It was suggested that all Bureau meetings needed to be called in writing on
the CS Bureau list, that the announcement of the meeting needed to be
accompanied of an Agenda, both a Chair and a Secretary needed to be elected
and minutes (even informal) to be taken. Several CS representatives –Renata
Bloem (NGOs), Robert Guerra (North America & Europe) and Viola Krebs
(Volunteers)— stressed the need for these procedures to always be respected.

Viola Krebs further underlined the need for an evaluation of each Bureau
Family. This evaluation could be done along the lines of what had been
suggested by Nick Moraitis (Youth) some time ago. It would need to be done
by all families, in some formal way.
Nnenna Nwakanma then briefly talked about African Civil Society, which is in
the process of setting up a formalized structure. The aim is to make sure
that it does not remain underrepresented in international meetings.

Robert Guerra also pointed out that the issue of under representation was
also of concern for Latin America. He urged that proactive measures should
be taken to alleviate this issue.

3rd March 2004

A written agenda was proposed for this meeting, which was not the case for
the previous ones. The points of the Agenda included:
The brainstorming agenda included the following points:

1. Evaluation / Lessons learned for CS (Plenary, Bureau, CT Groups) for WSIS
phase 1

2. Procedural questions related to the Bureau
a. What are the procedural requirements for a bureau meeting (how to call a
meeting, what is a quorum)?
b. Procedure for designation of alternates

3. Impressions of the Tunisia meeting and how to move forward for phase 2

The meeting was chaired by Renate Bloem, minutes taken by Viola Krebs. It
was structured into three parts: 1) Ideas for the evaluation process of the
CS Bureau, 2) Non-representation of some regions, 3) Impressions of meeting
of the last two days. It was clearly stated that these informal meetings of
CS would not be occasions to take any formal decisions.

Ideas for the evaluation process of the CS Bureau

What is also critical is to acknowledge the achievements to date. CS is
today a full partner and recognized actor in the WSIS process. As such, CS
was invited in to this informal consultation meeting and was able to express
its views on an equal foot with governments. This is very positive. The
Tunisian government is furthermore very open to including CS.

Continuity and Documentation

It was acknowledged that we are currently in a transition period where it is
important to make sure that there is no rupture. Hence, consultations are
important event if they happen on the net. To consider whether any families
need to be added to the CS Bureau is of the competency of the Plenary. The
Bureau in its present form should be able to continue until the first
PrepCom of phase 2. The announcement of the creation of a Trust Fund is an
important step forward, as it is impossible for CS to be well represented
without scholarships and coordination.

It was said that CS is now being fully recognized as an important actor. As
such, CS can build legitimacy for phase 2, a step which is important. The
structure developed in the WSIS process, can set a precedent for UN Summits
(CS Bureau, Plenary, Caucuses). For this reason and for reasons of
transparency, it is critical that the process is well documented.

Lessons learned

It is urgent to move forward with the evaluation, think about some kind of a
mechanism to confirm representativity of the various representatives. Since
each family has its own mechanisms and structure, the evaluation needs to be
flexible enough to match those differences, but also ridged enough to
actually be able to really evaluate the work done so far, groups reached,
etc.
For the “lessons learned”, it is most important to consider whether all
those who should have been mobilized were included in phase 1. If not, the
question is how to include them in the next phase.

It was pointed out that “Lessons learned” should mostly answer the question
of whether families were indeed covering the constituency one would expect
them to. Further, clear criteria for the evaluation are needed.

Confirmation of Focal points

For phase 2 of the WSIS, it is necessary to have the position of CS Bureau
Members reconfirmed (they will need to get legitimacy from whom they
represent, e.g. reconfirmation or elections in each family, as it was done
at PrepCom 2 of phase 1). The evaluation can help do this. The Bureau is
only one of three instances of civil society in the WSIS process, yet it was
the only one invited to this meeting, similarly to governments and the
private sector. The CT Group should always be represented in the Bureau, but
was not in this informal meeting. In the future, this should be adjusted.
The Bureau only deals with procedure, not with content.

Regional families

An African coordination for CS has been set up, not only for the WSIS, but
for civil society in general. It is working with e-consultation and
e-conferences. CS should also consider these possibilities for the WSIS
process.

Non-representation of some regions

Nnenna Nwakanma, of the African Civil Society, asked for advice. According
to her, the African civil society was underrepresented in the WSIS. Official
documents did include some African input, which however mostly came from the
African Diaspora and not the continental Africans. This observation, she
explained, had started a discussion in Geneva and had lead to a mobilization
early 2004. Now, a structure is being set up to have regional
representatives and national focal points for Africa.

Robert Guerra pointed out that Africa was not the only region with
challenges of representation. While the Latin American CS had been very
active in phase 1, there are some serious challenges, both linked to the
classification of countries such as Argentina and Mexico and the fact
language difficulties make participation quite difficult. Indeed, the
Tunisia official web site of the WSIS is only in French, English and Arabic,
but no Spanish. This language issue needs to be addressed.

Impressions of meeting of the last two days

Civil society was able to speak and its interventions where actually taken
up. The question of course is also to see which governments attended the
meeting. Many of them were like-minded. There were very few representatives
from Asia and Africa. Contacts with governments at this meeting have proven
to be useful in that they help understand better what governments think and
how civil society can be most efficient in the WSIS process. Civil society
should try to interact even more with governments then this may have been
the case in phase 1.

It was pointed out that CS has managed to occupy a space and now needs to
make sure this space is well used, and interactions handled with a certain
maturity. Frustration was expressed about the fact that there had been
discussions focusing on the Summit just for the Summit. Indeed, to work for
a period of two years to solely focus on three days of Summit is not enough.
We should not forget people in the field. Aspects such as the ICT4D Platform
are critical in this respect.

It was pointed out that the Tunisian civil society really wishes to have CS
well represented in this Summit, and with all its dimensions, including the
more militant components. The Summit will be a challenge for Tunisia, as the
Summit host, but also an opportunity for both the international community
and Tunisia.

In this meeting, CS was able to fully perceive the achievements of Geneva.
And we went one more step forward since. It appears that we are moving
forward with a thematic approach. Contrary what may have been perceived
earlier in the process, there are just as many points to be dealt with in
the Tunisia phase as in Geneva one. For Civil society, there is also the
challenge of means. A fund has been created, but now needs to be alimented.

The participation of civil society is regarded as a must from all parties.
There has been some mention about the after Tunisia. There is now the
question about the final list of themes to be tackled, but also the
appreciation that the process has truly evolved. There is the question of
roles and responsibilities of each actor. It is encouraging to see to what
extent governments embrace this evolution.

It was underlined that CS had come a long way in the process. In phase 2, it
is important for CS to wisely occupy the space it has been given, hence to
see the process as a step forward, with many opportunities and a need for
lessens learned allowing to move forward rather than backwards. The question
of the implementation and partnerships was important. Indeed partnerships
had been mentioned throughout the two-day meeting. In this innovative
process, it is important to enhance cooperation among the various CS
families, and with governments and the private sector.

There was a true feeling of a Summit in two phases, with the same basic
structures and two key governments, Switzerland and Tunisia. However, it
also had become a lot more clear that by no means the challenges and the
work to be done in phase 2 will be less than in phase 1. It is key that the
CS Bureau can evolve. Financial challenges need to be resolved if we want to
move forward.

There is an under-representation of researchers from developing counties.
This should be improved in phase 2. ICT4D was an important asset providing
visibility to projects, which should be kept for phase 2.

It was noted that the Geneva phase lead to a CS Declaration and also because
the second phase promises to be an action phase. Regional representation is
needed.  Some frustration was expressed about means for improving the
participation of African civil society. It is important that the evaluation
is done with known and clear criteria.

Civil society can directly speak to governments and offer its expertise.
Indeed, CS has expertise that might be extremely helpful for governments,
e.g. regarding the responsibility of service providers, open and free
software, etc. Foundations have been little present in phase 1. This should
change for phase 2, as they are a valuable partner, which also might be able
to help with funding issues.

Tunisia had shown great hospitality which needs to be acknowledged. There
are many challenges before us, in terms of all the issues to be resolved in
phase 2. CS is now definitely in the process and has to make sure it can
also deliver.
Sections of this report have been assembled by Renate Bloem, Viola Krebs,
Robert Guerra, Louise Lassonde

 Attachments:
Participation
The following civil society representatives participated in the two
brainstorming meetings:
Quick calculation, in terms of the ratio: Tunisian representation - 4/15 =
26%; others – 11/15 = 76%.
1. Moncef Achour, achourmoncef at yahoo.fr, Tunisian CS Focal point (Tunisia)
2. Kamel Ayadi, cic at coi-tn.org, Sciences & Technology (Tunisia)
3. Renata Bloem, rbloem at ngocongo.org, NGOs
4. Nicolas Cauchy, Cauchy at ictp.trieste.it, Third World Academy of Sciences
(Italy)
5. Alain Clerc, alain.clerc at fdd.org (Switzerland)
6. Adel El Zaïm, aezaim at idrc.org.eg, Multi-stakeholder Family (Egypt)
7. Robert Guerra, rguerra at privaterra.org, North America & Europe
(Canada/Spain)
8. Louise Lassonde, louise.lassonde at fdd.org (Canada)
9. Ann-Kristin Håkansson, akigua at telia.com, Indigenous Peoples (Sweden)
10. Hiroshi Kawamura, hkawa at rehab.go.jp, People with Disabilities (Japan)
11. Viola Krebs, viola at isv2001.org, Volunteers (Switzerland)
12. Tijami Ben Jemaa, Tijami.benjemaa at planet.tn , Youth Family (Tunisia)
13. Mustapha Massmoudi, atucom at planet.tn, African Group, Arab Sub-region
(Tunisia)
14. Francis Muguet, muguet at molpi.org, Academia & Education (France)
15. Nnenna Nwakanma, Nne75 at yahoo.com, African Civil Society (Côte d’Ivoire)


ATTACHMENTS

===============
Document 1:

Note on the Informal Meeting for the 2nd Phase of the WSIS
Tunis, 2-3 March 2004
Source: http://www.smsitunis2005.com/plateforme/index.php?lang=en

The meeting which was convened by the Government of Tunisia, in close
cooperation with ITU/ES. The objective of the meeting was to have a
preliminary discussion on the phase 2 of the WSIS around the following
themes divided into working groups:
 Theme 1: Implementation of the Geneva Action Plan
 Theme 2: Expected results of the second phase of the WSIS
 Theme 3: The process of the second phase of the WSIS

The meeting was opened and closed by the Minister of Transport,
Communication and Technology of Tunisia while the plenary sessions were
chaired by the Secretary of State of Information and Communication
Technology of Tunisia.
Government, Civil Society Organizations, the Private Sector, International
organizations, the United Nations Regional Commissions and other invited
guests took part in the meeting.

At the end of the meeting a summary of the discussions was read by the
Minister who emphasized the non official nature of the conclusions, which
will be put forward to official organs of the WSIS for debate.

>From the discussions, participants considered the need for continuity
between the two phases and the full involvement of all stakeholders.
Below please find the main elements for each theme:

Theme 1: Implementation of the Geneva Action Plan

Questions raised at the beginning of the session:
 How to go about the implementation process
 Identify who the main actors are / define their respective roles
 How to ensure real progress & goals are adequately met
 Implementing the Action Plan beyond Tunis (up to 2015): what would be the
role of the Summit?

In deliberating on Theme 1 the following points should be considered:
 Implementation as an action of its own
 Documenting the process
 Follow up and coordination
 Evaluating implementation through indicators (to be developed)
 Linking thematic and regional approaches
 Looking into complementarity between the various levels (international,
regional and national)
 Mobilizing resources for implementation


Theme II: Expected results of the second phase of the WSIS

As participants considered the Tunis phase as part of one single Summit,
discussions centered around the need for a strong political document which
would renew commitments of stakeholders on building an inclusive information
society from what was agreed upon in Geneva. This would avoid reopening
debates on the Geneva Declaration and Action Plan.

The following would be considered as potential deliverables for the Summit:
 A document containing a political message from Heads of States
 A document which may be an Agenda in form of a plan to federate several
operations including Regional Action Plans

In deliberating on Theme 2 the following points should be considered:
 Complementarity between thematic and regional dimensions
 Reaffirming the value of Digital Solidarity
 Partnership for Development” as a potential rallying theme for the Tunis
phase
 Anchoring the Summit outputs in the UN Development System and Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs) to ensure follow-up and periodic review


Theme 3: The process of the second phase of the WSIS

Participants noted that even though the rules of procedures which were
adopted in Geneva will apply to the two phases; it was necessary to improve
synergy with the various stakeholders for an inclusive process which should
cover both the preparatory phase and the Summit itself.

In deliberating on Theme 3 the following points should be considered:
 Implementing the Geneva Action Plan
 Documenting the process
 Follow up and coordination
 Development of evaluation tools such as indicators
 Planning for the Tunis Summit
 PrepComs
 Regional Conferences
 Thematic Conferences
 Constraints (Time and resources)
 Production of reports requested by the Geneva Phase
 Coordination issues
 Use of planned events to reduce costs of the process
 Use of ICT in the facilitation and planning process


===============
 Document 2:

Message sent by Nick Moraitis about the evaluation / lessons learned

1) We determine questions for a survey

2) We distribute this survey to the 'convenors' (as Bertrand would say) and
other stakeholders
 Civil Society Focal Points
 Working Groups
 Random other members of civil society who attended meetings or were
involved in 'less involved' ways.
As well as
 Business community contacts
 Executive Secretariat
 Government Bureau

Obviously we could aim for less -- say 1 per family / focal point or more
and distribute our survey more widely. Considering the limited enthusiasm on
this list, it's probably best to keep it simple.

3) We analyze the results.

4) We write a report.

5) We distribute the report on http://www.geneva2003.org and at the next
PrepCom.

I certainly can help out. That said, if it is me alone it will not be as
good as it 'could be' because I have limited academic training – and even
more limited time.

Should we form an evaluation taskforce? If so, who would like to be on it?

We are currently running a survey on TakingITGlobal evaluating our online
community & have built a survey tool for this purpose.
(http://surveys.takingitglobal.org/survey.html?SurveyID=1). We could use
that to run the survey.


Areas that we may consider evaluating:
1) Goals of civil society groups participating in WSIS
2) Experience of the accreditation and registration process
3) Ability to have influence in preparatory process
4) Networking - how has WSIS fostered collaboration
5) Use of technology/web to support information sharing
6) Experience of side-events at prepcoms
7) Experience of national level activities and connection with government
8) Learning and Inspiration - if WSIS has catalysed new projects or programs
9) Opinions on the ultimate documents - Declaration & WSIS Action Plan
10) Relationship to Civil Society structures
A) Did they know there was Civil Society structures such as a Bureau and
Working Groups
B) Reflections on the support provided by working collectively as part of a
Caucus or Family

11) Experience of the Summit
A) Highpoints
B) Lowpoints

12) What has been missing from the WSIS process to date, if anything?
13) What has WSIS led to? And Plans to be involved in the next phase?

This are just some key questions that come to mind.

Of course, these might be far too broad, and we may choose to consider more
closely the things we discussed last year -- like:
A) Has it overall been effective?
B) Composition of the Bureau and the categories of families.
C) The Secretariat and its support for civil society
D) Fundraising for civil society activities
C) Fellowship fundraising and distribution
D) Civil Society involvement in plenary
E) Meetings with Intergovernmental Bureau
F) Relationship with CS Plenary
G) Communications structures of Civil Society - websites, mailing lists etc.
E) Representation through speeches in plenary etc.
F) Representation in the media


=============

Document 3:

For the purposes of drawing the lessons learned from civil society
participation in Phase I (and particularly on the establishment of the CS
Bureau) the CS Division of the WSIS Secretariat has referred to the
following civil society definition and criteria for grouping civil society
entities:

Civil Society as defined in the United Nations system

"A 'Civil Society' is the result of different components of populations and
communities, and refers to the sphere in which citizens and social
initiatives organise themselves around objectives, constituencies and
thematic interests. They act collectively through their organisations known
as Civil Society Organisations which include movements, entities,
institutions autonomous from the State which in principle, are
non-profit-making, act locally, nationally and internationally, in defence
and promotion of social, economic and cultural interests and for mutual
benefit. They intermediate between their constituencies/members, with the
State as well as with United Nations bodies. They do this through lobbying
and/or provision of services. Though belonging to the non-State actor
category, they are different from the private sector and NGO as they may not
be registered, may replace the public sector, are not always structured and
often their
members are not officially recognized”.


Civil Society “Families” as identified in the WSIS process

In the tripartite WSIS context, which seeks to create an exchange platform
between the State, the private sector and the civil society, civil society
itself is comprised of all entities that are not the State,
intergovernmental organisations and the private sector . We could consider
that several distinct family entities compose the civil society and NGO
category. A family may be comprised of several types of relatives, from
close to distant members, however, each family will have some common
characteristics:

a. a homogenous institutional culture and the existence of established or
informal consultation mechanisms will be found within a family group;
b. an umbrella organisation of international character will cluster a large
number of members under the same reference structure;
c. communication mechanisms within a family will allow information
dissemination and exchanges between members of the same family group.

Based on these considerations, the family groups involved in the WSIS appear
to be the following:
1. Academia and education
2. The science and technology community
3. The media
4. The creators and active promoters of culture
5. Cities and local authorities
6. Trade Unions
7. Parliamentarians
8. NGOs
9. Youth
10. Gender
11.  Indigenous People
12. Disabled
13. Social movements
14. Multi-stakeholders partnerships
15. Philanthropic institutions & Foundations
16. Think Tanks
17. Africa Region
18. Latin America Region
19. Asian Region
20. North America, Europe and CIS Region
21. Middle East and West Asia Region