[WSIS CS-Plenary] Final Plenary CS Statements

[karen banks]

dear all

Civil Society ended up making three statements in the final plenary last night.

This wasn't intended. Our original plan was to have one CS speaker from 
Sub-ComA and one from Sub-ComB.

However, the chair of subcom A - due to a 'misunderstanding/technical 
error' didn't allow civil society or the private sector to speak in the 
final subcom A meeting (just prior to plenary. So, after a personal 
intervention from izumi, the chair apologised and requested that Amb 
Karklins give them space in the final plenary.

So, Avri read the statement we had prepared on SubCom A, not too long 
before njenga read a statement based on the press conference statement with 
a little re-working. There was some overlap, but it didn't matter - the 
fact that the statements echoed one another was quite good.

Bertrand also read a statement, emphasizing amongst other things, the 
concern about process from now, until tunis - and beyond.

The two statements prepared by the IG caucus are below, i don't have a copy 
of bertrands

karen
-----
ps.. note - the statements below are not exactly what was read - some 
adjustments had to be made on the fly due to the general confusion - both 
statements have been submitted to the WSIS/ITU secretariat

statements by avri doria (1) and emmanuel njenga njuguna (2)
-----------------------------------------------------------

(1) Internet Governance Statement for SUBCOM A – 30 September

We see promise in the proposal from Argentina of 30 September, which takes 
the WGIG report seriously and includes some general principles that are 
close to our own.

We welcome the references to the participation of all stake-holders in, for 
example, the development of multi-stakeholder processes at the national and 
regional levels, and in training and capacity building activities.

However, the proposal must include explicit references to including all 
stakeholders as peers, at all levels of the forum, in line with the Geneva 
principles.

Although the forum has an important role as a space “to facilitate the 
exchange of information and best practices 
 “ (etc), we believe that, as 
the WGIG report recommended, the forum should be a place where any issue, 
specific or multidimensional, can be addressed; e.g the issue of 
international interconnection costs has not been adequately addressed by 
any single organization.

We agree that the forum should not replace existing mechanisms or 
institutions and should build on the existing structures, but it should 
certainly facilitate greater interaction and cooperation between mechanisms.

There is no mention of where and in what form the forum would be 
constituted; we have suggested that it should be outside of, but related 
to, the UN.
We certainly don't want it based in an existing institution though we do 
see a role for existing institutions to act as hosts for its meetings.

We are concerned about the process from here to Tunis. How will the multi 
stakeholder model be accommodated? If the process is closed, the wealth of 
CS expertise will not be available to the governments.  We would like to 
know whether the proposals made by civil society and other stakeholders are 
to be considered in the continuing process.

How can we move forward together?

-----------------------------------------
(2) Emmanuel Njenga Njuguna, Association for Progressive Communications, 
for the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus

Statement to Plenary, WSIS PrepCom III, September 30th 2005

After 2 weeks of PrepCom the governments have still not reached agreement 
on Internet governance.

The Geneva principles create the opportunity for this impasse to be 
resolved constructively and creatively by including the perspectives and 
expertise of all stakeholders. We believe this would have been more 
effective than the ongoing deadlock that emerged from counter positioning 
among governments.

This is the only way to arrive at a legitimate and sustainable outcome as 
it includes the participation of the people and institutions involved in 
the evolution, use and management of the Internet.

Most governments now support the creation of an Internet Governance Forum, 
which we value as a positive outcome of the work of Sub Committee A during 
PrepCom III.

---- cut on the fly, a bit of adlibbing, as the statement was not intended 
to be read out so soon after avris

We think that the Forum will only work if it’s formation is based on the 
Geneva principles, addresses cross cutting issues and provides a space that 
addresses the multidimensional aspects of development in relation to 
Internet governance and public policy issues.  We believe that there are 
many creative solutions to the establishment of a Forum and hope that the 
governments will give our suggestions full consideration.

----->

We would like to add that the Prepcom would have made much more progress if 
governments had begun their negotiations explicitly based on the work done 
by the WGIG, a body that was exemplary in that it afforded all sectors full 
participation as peers.

Civil society made a statement on Wednesday 28 September 2005 protesting 
the exclusion of non-governmental organizations from the working 
groups.  Our protest questioned the legitimacy of a process that excluded 
the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. Meaningful participation 
involves the ability to take part in all discussions.

While conditions for participation did not change in a material way after 
the reading of the statement, the chairs of the subcommittees did try to 
accommodate non-governmental participants as best they could.  We 
appreciate their efforts, and regret, due to circumstances beyond their 
control, that they were not able to sustain them throughout the PrepCom.

We are concerned about the process from here to Tunis.

Will all stakeholders be included?

If they are not, the legitimacy of this uniquely inclusive process will be 
at risk.