[WSIS CS-Plenary] Draft input to GFC
Robert Guerra
rguerra at lists.privaterra.org
Sat Jul 23 16:08:07 BST 2005
As a suggestion, I would ask in addition to "UN Language",
information on and about meetings and documents also be summarized.
It might things easier for those of us not accustomed to UN "geek"
speak.
My interpretation of the earlier document sent by Phillipe - seems
to be a contribution of the PrepCom president, Ambassador Karklins,
for consideration at PrepCom3.
I have copied the document from the earlier attachment and pasted it
below. As well, I have placed it online - as am not sure if the ITU
has posted the document yet.
regards
Robert
Input to the 7th meeting of the WSIS Group of Friends of the Chair (GFC)
Possible draft text for paras 10, 11 and 29 of the Operational Document
Mirror @ http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/files/pc3.html
Source: President of the PrepCom of the Tunis Phase of WSIS
22 July 2005
Operational part of the final document / Tunis Agenda for Action /
Tunis Plan of implementation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Original draft from Group of Friends of Chair (11 January 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
10. In order to assure the sustainability of the WSIS process
after the completion of its Tunis phase, we agree to establish an
implementation mechanism for the Geneva and Tunis Plans of Action,
based upon co-operation among governments and all stakeholders, with
the overarching goal of helping countries and societies to achieve
the development goals of the Millennium Declaration. To that end, for
each Action Line in the Geneva and Tunis Plans of Action (as
identified in the Annex), a team of stakeholders will work together
to promote implementation. We request the UN Secretary-General to
nominate, from among existing UN bodies or specialised agencies,
those that will [moderate/coordinate] the work of each team, based on
respect for their mandates and leveraging on their expertise, and
within their existing resources.
------------------------------
Possible revised draft
------------------------------
10. We acknowledge that multi-stakeholder participation in the
building of the inclusive and development-oriented information
society is essential. We underline that the continuous and
substantial involvement of all stakeholders in implementing WSIS
decisions on national, regional and international levels with the
overarching goal of helping countries to achieve internationally
agreed development goals is a key of success.
RG -> any desire to insert language to make the statement about
stakeholders, in particular CS any stronger?
11. In order to assure the sustainability of the WSIS process
after the completion of its Tunis phase, we agree to establish a
process of follow-up to the outcomes of the [Geneva and Tunis phases
of] WSIS, at national, regional and international levels. It may
include, at each level, the following elements:
a) implementation of the outcomes of the Geneva and Tunis phases
of WSIS;
b) evaluation of information society developments (including
through a digital opportunity index);
c) policy debate and review.
RG-> Are "elements" mentioned ok? should any additional ones be added?
RG -> Any suggestions/recommendations on what the process of follow-
up and evaluation could look like?
12. At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, we
encourage governments to set up a national implementation framework
with full and effective participation of civil society and business
entities;
RG -> is "full and effective participation of CS" enough?
a) National e-strategies, where appropriate, should be made an
integral part of national development plans, including Poverty
Reduction Strategies, aiming to contribute to the achievement of the
goals contained in the United Nations Millennium Declaration;
b) ICTs should be fully mainstreamed into strategies for Official
Development Assistance (ODA) through more effective donor information-
sharing and co-ordination, and through analysis and sharing of best
practices and lessons learned from experience with ICT for
development programmes;
c) Existing bilateral and multilateral technical assistance
programmes, including those under the UN Development Assistance
Framework, should be used whenever appropriate to assist governments
in their implementation efforts at the national level;
d) Common Country Assessment reports should contain a component on
ICT for development.
RG -> Should there be a reference to the CS WSIS benchmarks from
Phase I ?
RG -> Are there any other frameworks that could be considered ?
13. At the regional level:
a) Upon request from governments, regional inter-governmental
organizations could carry out WSIS implementation activities,
exchanging information and best practices at the regional level, as
well as organizing policy debate on the use of ICT for development,
with a focus on attaining internationally agreed development goals,
including those contained in the Millennium Declaration;
b) UN regional economic commissions, based on request of member
states and within approved budgetary resources, may organize regional
WSIS follow up conferences with appropriate frequency;
c) We consider a multi-stakeholder approach and the full and
effective participation in regional activities by civil society and
business entities to be essential.
RG -> is "essential" participation of CS enough ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Original draft from Group of Friends of Chair (11 January 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
11. The [moderator/coordinator] of each team identified in the
Annex should periodically prepare a report on the implementation of
the Geneva and Tunis Plans of Action based upon the information
provided by, and the outputs from collaboration among, stakeholders,
focussing particular attention on the progress towards achievement of
the internationally-agreed development goals of the Millennium
Declaration, and submit it to [a defined coordination body]. The
[head of a defined coordination body] will submit regular reports to
the UN General Assembly, following its existing rules of procedure.
[Options for a defined coordination body (with participation of
representatives of all stakeholders):
• ITU/WSIS-ES;
• “existing UN division” (within UN DESA) for following-up major
UN conferences;
• Newly-created UN Inter-agency task force, HLSOC-type, (supported
by a 2-3 person secretariat);
• Newly-created UN ICT Task Force-type forum (supported by 2-3
person secretariat);
------------------------------
Possible revised draft
------------------------------
14. At the international level:
a) Implementation of the outcomes of the Geneva and Tunis phases
of the Summit in the UN system should take account of the main themes
and action lines in the Summit documents;
b) Each UN agency, according to its mandate and competencies, and
based on decisions of their respective governing bodies, could
facilitate activities among different stakeholders, including civil
society and the private sector, to help national governments in their
implementation efforts. The facilitation could include information
exchange, sharing of best practices, and assistance in developing
public/private and multi-stakeholder partnerships. Facilitation
should be carried out within the approved budgets of the respective
agencies;
RG -> Does CS care to comment? does it agree, not, or not care?
c) Coordination of multi-stakeholder implementation activities
would allow information exchange and avoidance of duplication of
activities;
RG -> who does the co-ordination ? who would fund it ? I ask, as CS
co-ordination, if possible should be funded in a much more effective
way then it is now. There should be - some - thought on this.
d) The establishment of multi-stakeholder partnerships[, such as
the ITU-led initiative “Connect the World”], which are aimed at
bridging the digital divide, should be supported and encouraged;
RG -> Other multi-stakeholder partnerships are likely to be announced
at the summit. Is it possible that a CS centric one be created?
RG -> Personally, it would be good if the "partnerships" that are
announced/ launched would commit to a certain set of principles that
are consistent with the core values of rights firmly held by the
majority of CS groups.
e) The modalities of coordination of implementation activities
among the UN agencies should be defined by the UN Secretary General
on the basis of existing practices within the UN system [and within
the WSIS]. The experience of, and the activities undertaken by, UN
agencies in the WSIS process—notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP—should
continue to be used to their fullest extent.
RG -> should CS be mentioned?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Original draft from Group of Friends of Chair (11 January 2005)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------
Chapter Four: The way ahead
29. We request the Secretary-General of the United Nations to
provide—with the collaboration of all stakeholders, and fully
utilizing the existing coordination mechanisms within or related to
the United Nations—sustained follow-up within the United Nations
system to the agreements and commitments reached at WSIS and to
ensure effective secretariat support. The Secretary-General of the
United Nations is further requested to submit a periodic report to
the General Assembly of the United Nations on those follow-up efforts.
------------------------------
Possible revised draft
------------------------------
Chapter Four: The way ahead
29. Evaluation and policy formulation, at the national level,
would remain the prerogative of governments. We consider the full and
effective participation in the policy debate by the national civil
society and business entities to be essential.
RG -> is essential good enough for CS. any interest in rewording this
section ?
30. A realistic international performance evaluation and benchmarking
(both qualitative and quantitative), through comparable statistical
indicators and research results, including by using a methodology for
a composite ICT development index (digital opportunity index), should
be developed to follow up the implementation of the Geneva and Tunis
outcomes, taking into account different national circumstances.
RG -> this links into the work being done by UNESCO, specifically
ORBICOM. Are there indicators that CS would like to see included?
31. The stocktaking of activities related to the implementation of
the Geneva and Tunis outcomes could be a valuable source of
information in the evaluation process.
32. We request the Secretary General of the United Nations to submit
an annual report to the ECOSOC and/or UNGA on implementation
activities of the WSIS decisions within the UN family.
33. Review and policy debate should be organized in the framework of
the follow-up to the outcomes of the major UN conferences and summits
in the Economic and Social fields, as provided for in UNGA Resolution
57/270. It should be an integral part of the review process of the
implementation of the Millennium Declaration.
RG -> what does this section mean? is it suggesting that follow-up
and review of the WSIS process be merged with the MDG processes? If
so, then we really need to make sure that the MDG meetings in sept
are - very - closely monitored.
If not, then what type of follow-up process is being suggested and/or
recommended? A follow-up meeting @ 2, 5, or 10 years? or something else?
RG -> would be good to have a position from one or more CS groups on
this.
34. Continuous involvement of all stakeholders in the policy
discussion after Tunis Summit is essential and the modalities of such
participation should be established.
RG -> seems this is a reference to the multi-stakeholder approach.
Should it be reworded?
More information about the Plenary
mailing list