[WSIS CS-Plenary] Drastic changes to the proposed WSIS implementation mechanisms in the new text

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Dear Parminder and all
"WSIS cannot be equated with that of other UN summits (that) dealt with an existing problem/issue more or less fully formed"
In my opinion, this is only partially true. The Jo'burg Summit and its follow-up (Rio + 10, + 15, + ...) as well as the Millienium Declaration on poverty reduction process with its inhernet follow-up, are counter-examples for this statement. But very fortunately, they both have strong ties with the WSIS process. This was stressed in particular for MDGs and WSIS since the beginning of the 2nd phase of WSIS. 
Our objective, as far as the WSIS follow-up  is concerned, is to link more effectively the Rio/Jo'burg process, as to complete an actual "development (agenda) package", thus making WSIS one of the milestones for helping people from DCs to emerge from poverty, at last (and not only focusing on reducing the so-called "digital divide").
This should be our way ahead to put in place "legitimized post-WSIS structures (that) will have better chance of moving towards some outcomes" as you very correctly ask for.
Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT       





> Message du 30/08/05 05:58
> De : "Parminder" 
> A : plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Drastic changes to the proposed WSIS implementation mechanisms in the new text
> 
> 
Dear Bertrand, Francis, Robert and others, 
 
At this stage we need to pitch in for a new and exclusive implementation/ follow-up mechanism, outside the 57/270 B framework. However difficult to achieve this should still , in my view, be our single-point agenda in the current round, and therefore we should insist on keeping the existing text of points 10, 11 and 29.
 
 (Only later, if at the prepcom we see that there is no way anything beyond 57/270 is going to be agreed, should we try to salvage the best out of that framework, an activity which, as Francis says, is going to be a subtle exercise. This however doesn’t stop us at this point to gather all the ammunition for that later stage to get the best points out of 57/270, but lets not dilute our outward strategy for the moment)
 
But to make this advocacy point forcefully we will be up against this one simple question – WHY, WHAT’S SO DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS SUMMIT FOR IT TO DESERVE IMPLEMENTATION/ FOLLOW UP MECHANISM OUTSIDE THE REGULAR ONES ??
 
And we need to prepare good answers to this, and lobby others with them.
 
Points like, 
 
Quoting form my earlier email - 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 coordinated 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 organizations.
 
Developing countries must recognize, and we need to lobby with them, that such structures are in their interest. In the debates, and lobbying efforts, on implementation, we will continuously run into … ‘within their existing resources’ ‘not to make un-necessary new arrangements with financial commitments’ …kind of arguments. To have an implementation structure with an adequate secretariat and other support doesn’t cost that much especially in the context of the hundreds of international meetings etc that keep happening around us with little real outcomes. Legitimatized post-WSIS structures on the other hand will have better chance of moving towards some outcomes.  
 
doc (95.8 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050830/f4c2969e/attachment.htm