[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] UNICT TF Working Group 1 meetin

[Jeanette Hofmann]

William Drake wrote:
Hi, everyone,

we havn't settled the time for a caucus meeting yet. From what I sense 
Saturday morning might be the best time. Bill suggested we could meet 
somewhere for a breakfast session. The other option would be Thursday 
night after the Global Forum reception. The advantage of the Thursday 
meeting would be that we could discuss the presentation Adam and I are 
invited to do at the meeting of UNICT TF working group 1.

Regarding those who attend the UNICT Global Forum meeting, is there 
anybody except for Wolfgang who would be unable to attend a meeting on 
Saturday morning?

Btw, there is a separate registration required for those who plan to 
attend any of the working group meetings on Friday afternoon. If you 
can't find the form, please get back to me privately.

jeanette

> Hi,
> 
> It should be noted that there is another meeting that may be of interest to
> CS folks, but which is unfortunately scheduled at the same time as the
> Public Voice gathering.  The UNICT Task Force has five specialized working
> groups that have met during each of the TF meeting.   Three of these will be
> meeting on Friday afternoon in New York.  WG 1 on governance and policy,
> which was formerly convened by the Markle Foundation, is now being convened
> by Anriette Esterhuysen of APC.  This is the working group that has been the
> primary focal point for discussion of Internet governance and related
> international institutional matters.  Friday's session, which goes from 2 to
> 5pm, will include presentations by several Internet governance caucus
> members, including myself (in a personal capacity, on WTO e-trade issues)
> and by one or both (not clear on what they've decided) of our co-conveners,
> Adam Peake and Jeanette Hofmann.  They will describe the caucus' activities
> in WSIS and could cover any substantive points caucus members agree on
> Thursday night, so some people might be interested in participating in this
> discussion.  The agenda is at
> http://www.unicttf.org/sixthmeeting/events.html
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Frannie Wellings [mailto:wellings at epic.org]
>>Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 6:27 PM
>>To: pv:; plenary at wsis-cs.org; hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org;
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>Cc: Marc Rotenberg
>>Subject: [governance] Public Voice meeting update; 3/22 and 3/36
>>
>>
>>Hi everyone -
>>The purpose of this e-mail is 1) to announce a teleconference on
>>Monday 3/22, 2) to provide further information and confirm attendance
>>for the Public Voice NY meeting on Friday 2/26, and 3) to propose an
>>extension of the Friday meeting at Ford to drinks/dinner that
>>evening. Also, if anyone hasn't yet seen it, I've included at the end
>>of this e-mail a report from Tunisia prepared by Viola Krebs, Renate
>>Bloem, Robert Guerra and Louise Lassonde.
>>For everyone interested in talking briefly via telephone on Monday to
>>catch up on issues related to the wsis and strategize for the UN
>>meeting on Thursday and Friday, we've set aside a call in number for
>>an hour at 2pm ET.  The number is below. Please join if you're
>>available.
>>The Public Voice meeting in New York City is still scheduled from
>>2-4pm.   The UN meeting ends at 1pm (the agenda for the UN meeting is
>>available at http://www.unicttaskforce.org/sixthmeeting/agenda.html).
>>We'll meet at 2pm in the B-level boardroom.  The staff at the front
>>desk can direct you to the room.  Below, I've included the current
>>list of attendees that I'll be submitting to Ford's front desk.  We
>>had hoped for teleconferencing for folks who aren't in NY, but it
>>doesn't appear to be possible at this point. I hope that everyone who
>>wanted to get an invitation to the UN ICT forum has managed to do so.
>>Finally, as some civil society people will be in working group
>>meetings until 5pm, we'd like to extend the meeting on Friday to a
>>session of drinks/dinner!  We can all get together to update one
>>another about our various meetings over cocktails and possibly a
>>meal.  We'll meet in the lobby of the Millennium (address below) at
>>6:30.  If anyone has any suggestions for a suitable bar/restaurant
>>that could accommodate a large group on a Friday night, please send
>>them my way (somewhere inexpensive as I think we're all on tight
>>budgets)!
>>Below I've summarized all the meeting information and listed the
>>current RSVPs for the NY gathering.  I look forward to speaking to
>>you all soon. - Frannie
>>
>>
>>Monday teleconference:
>>Monday, March 22nd, 2-3pm ET.
>>Call in number: 1-888-268-1204 (or if calling from an international
>>location 1-512-225-3050)
>>Access code: 65889#
>>
>>Friday NY meeting:
>>Friday, March 26th, 2-4pm ET.
>>Ford Foundation, B-level boardroom,
>>320 East 43rd Street New York, NY 10017
>>Please bring a photo ID for entrance into the Ford Foundation.
>>
>>Drinks/Dinner after the meeting:
>>Friday, March 26th, 6:30pm ET.
>>Meet in the lobby of the Millennium
>>One United Nations Plaza (44th St and 1st Avenue)
>>Any suggestions for drinks/dinner venues would be appreciated!
>>
>>
>>Current list of RSVP's for the March 26, 2004, 2pm Public Voice
>>meeting in New York.
>>1. Chris Chiu, ACLU
>>2. Deborah Hurley (via telephone)
>>3. Marc Rotenberg, EPIC
>>4. Frannie Wellings, EPIC
>>5. YJ Park, Syracuse University
>>6. Milton Mueller, Syracuse University
>>7. Mick Moraitis, Youth Creating Digital Opportunities Coalition
>>8. Sarah Tierney, Youth Creating Digital Opportunities Coalition
>>9. Valentina Azzarello, UNDP
>>10. Bobson Wong, Digital Freedom Network
>>11. Bahiyyih Chaffers, United Nations
>>12. Mark Bench, World Press Freedom Committee
>>13. Saskia Fisher, United Church of Christ
>>14. Aliza Dichter, Center for International Media Action
>>15. Derrick L. Cogburn - School of Info/Center for Afroamerican
>>Studies/U of Mich
>>16. Rikke Frank Joergensen, Danish Institute for Human Rights
>>17. Jane Finnerup, FN-forbundet/Danish UN Association
>>18. Veni Markovski, ICANN
>>19. Vittorio Bertola, Internet Governance Caucus
>>20. Michael Gurstein, New Jersey Institute of Technology
>>21. Robin Gross, IP Justice
>>22. DeeDee Halleck, Deep Dish
>>23. Oludare Odumuye, Alliance Rights, Nigeria
>>24. Robert Latham, Social Science Research Council
>>25. Ken Jordan, consultant
>>26. Ralf Bendrath, political scientist
>>27. Andy Carvin, Education Development Center
>>28. Catherine Fleming Bruce, Collaborative for Community Trust,
>>Modjeska Monteith Simkins Center for Justice, Ethics and Human Rights
>>29. Rik Panganiban, WFM and the Conference of NGOs
>>30. Francisco Lopez Bermudez, AuditorÌa Democr·tica Andina
>>31. Becky Lentz, Ford Foundation
>>
>>
>>Tunisia Report...
>>=========================
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Frannie Wellings
>>Policy Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center
>>Coordinator, The Public Voice
>>1718 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Suite 200
>>Washington, D.C.  20009   USA
>>wellings at epic.org
>>+1 202 483 1140 extension 107 (telephone)
>>+1 202 483 1248 (fax)
>>http://www.epic.org
>>http://www.thepublicvoice.org
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance