[WSIS CS-Plenary] CS Declaration/Outcome Document

Sun Aug 28 17:28:21 BST 2005

BTW, From a media perspective, having an official comprehensive CS
product/outcome document will increase the chances of media coverage of CS
issues.

Elizabeth

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
Behalf Of Elizabeth Carll, PhD
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 11:54 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text

[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated]
_______________________________________

Wolfgang and all,

Drafting our own document is an excellent recommendation.  It is unlikely
that all the points CS believes to be important will be included.  In
addition, a CS Declaration gives voice to all NGOs regardless of whether
they are able to attend the PrepCom or Summit.

Also, as the precedent has been established with the WSIS I CS Declaration,
which was posted on the official WSIS ITU website, it would be important to
continue the precedent of an official WSIS CS document being posted on the
WSIS II website.

Elizabeth

Dr. Elizabeth Carll
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies
Communications Coordination Committee for the UN
NGO Committee on Mental Health

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
Behalf Of Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 11:30 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text

[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated]
_______________________________________

Moving slowly into the final WSIS II round and expecting that the end game
will be an intergovernmental-only-horse-trading, Civil Society
Content&Themes should start to consider, what do do when we are in a similar
situation like in October/November 2003 at PrepCom3bis. Should we draft an
own document? What would be the Plan B?

Renata should this put on the agenda for the Sunday, September 18th meeting.

Best

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: So 28.08.2005 16:36
An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Betreff: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text

Hi Parminder,

Thanks for moving this along.  As you say, it's pressing, with just a couple
of days to go (although of course we can raise it at the prepcom even if we
don't get in a document prior).  I suspect it might be difficult to get
broad engagement and consensus quickly; it's not even entirely obvious if
this is a process issue for the bureau or a substance issue for content and
themes.  In any event, I suspect it might improve the chances if we focus
narrowly on your first point below and make a simple, one-point statement
opposing removal of the existing language.  The precise character of
implementation teams and mechanisms, the idea of an IS implementation forum
(in addition to the proposed IG forum?) and so on would take more dialogue
and consensus building within CS, and it's not obvious that it'd be
strategic to raise these at this stage.  So FWIW, my suggestion would be
that you draft a concise one paragraph statement on the first point, send it
to the list, and see if it gets traction.

Best,

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf
Of Parminder
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 3:59 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text

	Dear Bill, Jean-Loius, Bertrand, Robert and others,

	Thanks for your valuable comments.

	Do you think the CS can agree on a short statement that can be submitted to
the GFC before the deadline of 31st, and then also be taken up by CS
representatives that attend the 6th September meeting.

	We can include the following points in the statement.

	*         The CS strongly opposes the move to make the proposed changes in
paras 10, 11 and 29 of the operational part of the Tunis document, as per
the document submitted by the chair of the GFC. These changes are too
drastic and they do not represent the contributions of the various
stakeholders to the existing text of the operational part of the Tunis
document.

	*         The CS will also like to know the motivation and the reasons
behind the move to dismantle the implementation mechanism based on
stakeholder teams around action lines with a well-defined overall
co-ordination body, as indicated in the paras 10 and 11 of the present text.

	*         The CS will like to see the present suggested mechanism improved
through a multi-stakeholder consultative process to ensure that an adequate
and necessary post-WSIS structure is in place, not only for implementing the
outcomes of WSIS but also to take up Information Society (IS) issues as they
come up.

	*         A global IS policy and implementation structure beyond WSIS is
very important to put up, because many, existing and emerging, IS issues
defy the existing mandates and jurisdictions of multi-lateral bodies.

	*         The implementation- follow-up of WSIS cannot be equated with that
of other UN summits, because the nature of WSIS is very different from these
other UN summits. All the earlier summits dealt with an existing
problem/issue more or less fully formed, about which the global community
needed to give a co-ordinated response. WSIS however is about an emerging
context and opportunity, and most of its issues may be in the future, and
often, definitionally, (as consisting a new societal arrangement implicit in
the IS terminology used by WSIS), defying existing mandate and jurisdiction
of global organisations.

	*         The WGIG recommendation for a multi-stakeholder 'forum' for IG
issues, in its composition and the nature of functions, is a good format for
setting up a WSIS implementation and follow-up structure.

	If there is some general agreement around these points one of us can draft
a statement, and others who agree can endorse.

	Bertrand, is there a way to look for general endorsement of the CS, through
a proposal by the caucus on implementation mechanisms.

	To remind once again that we have only 3 days to send the written
statements.

	Regards

	Parminder

	_________________________________________________

	Parminder Jeet Singh

	IT for Change

	Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

	91-80-26654134

	www.ITforChange.net

	-----Original Message-----
	From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On
Behalf Of William Drake
	Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 1:21 PM
	To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
	Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text

	[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people.
Your cooperation is highly appreciated]

	_______________________________________

	Hi Parminder,

	Thanks for this, obviously very bad news that as you say requires a strong

	and coordinated response by CS.  We should make a statement soon, and at
the

	prepcom try to connect with governments that are reasonably like-minded on

	implementation.

	It is also interesting to read this in relation to two other items recently

	discussed on plenary---the 12th hour interventions on the .xxx domain, and

	the Bush Administration's equally 12th hour effort to rip up the entire

	Millenium + 5 document and remove any discussion of the MDGs and
development

	funding commitments.  You have to wonder what's going on here.   One can

	think of a very large number of cases in which last minute, radical changes

	in negotiating positions, in the US but elsewhere as well, resulted from

	process mismanagement, if not incompetence---e.g. earlier failures to get

	agreement among relevant governmental power centers, or overreactions to

	late push back from the private sector, legislatures, or other domestic

	actors.  While there's undoubtedly been an element of these dynamics in the

	recent cases (most notably the .xxx thing, which in the US involved push

	back from the religious far right), there's probably more to it than that.

	Like the .xxx decision and the Millenium + 5 text, the proposals for WSIS

	implementation mechanisms, including multistakeholder teams, have been on

	the table for a long time, yet the governments involved never got up and

	signaled that this is simply unacceptable to us.  It's not plausible that

	the 'need' to stop these decisions just dawned on them.  One suspects that

	this is by design, and that the negotiation strategy always has been to run

	down the clock, create a crisis, and then leverage that.  Any tiny last

	minute concessions can then be presented as acts of great sacrifice to the

	spirit of international consensus etc.  This is long been the standard

	practice in the WTO.  In any event, it certainly undermines a lot of

	previous effort, and any pretense of an open multistakeholder process.

	Best,

	Bill

	> -----Original Message-----

	> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On

	> Behalf Of Parminder

	> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:19 PM

	> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org

	> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS

	> implementation mechanisms in the new text

	>

	>

	>

	> Dear All,

	>

	> The new text proposed by the chair of the GFC for paras 10, 11

	> and 29 of the

	> operational part of the Tunis document, which deals with the actual

	> implementation and follow-up structures, carries some drastic changes. In

	> effect, specific implementation structures consisting of
multi-stakeholder

	> teams around various actions lines, with overall co-ordination by a

	> 'well-defined co-ordination body' as suggested in the existing text are

	> sought to be completely removed.

	>

	> See http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1671|0 for

	> the new draft.

	>

	> If this draft is accepted (as it most probably will be, unless strong

	> opposition to it is articulated NOW), it would essentially mean NO real

	> implementation and follow-up structures for WSIS. This will deny

	> the world a

	> much needed global Information Society (IS) policy (and implementation)

	> forum, at which rapidly arising important IS issues could be taken up.

	>

	> What is surprising is that the approach taken in the new text, where

	> implementation is subsumed under follow-up, is quite contrary to the

	> declaration by the Chair of GFC in a recent meeting organised by ITU
where

	> he affirmed that "for the first time that there is an evolving

	> understanding

	> within the UN that the implementation process and follow-up must

	> be seen as

	> separate processes". These thoughts are also clearly articulated in the

	> document 'food for thought' earlier distributed by the chair of GFC.

	> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1604|0

	>

	> I have prepared a comparison of the existing text and the proposed one,
on

	> the more relevant points, which I am enclosing here.

	>

	> The last date to give comments on the proposed text is 30th August. While

	> there may be differences in views within the CS about which

	> agencies should

	> play a pivotal role in implementation-follow up, I expect most of us to

	> agree on the point that the current drastic changes to the text, before

	> substantive discussions are taken up at prepcom 3, are completely

	> un-warranted.  These changes are too far reaching for them to come in
like

	> this, almost surreptitiously, as a proposed revised text when most of the

	> submissions to the earlier distributed draft on these points speak about

	> strengthening these points rather than removing/replacing them.

	> (please see

	> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1618|0 )

	>

	> Regards

	>

	> Parminder

	>

	>

	>

	> _________________________________________________

	> Parminder Jeet Singh

	> IT for Change

	> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities

	> 91-80-26654134

	> www.ITforChange.net

	>

	_______________________________________________

	Plenary mailing list

	Plenary at wsis-cs.org

	http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary