[WSIS CS-Plenary] Report from Intersessional Negotiation Meeting - 27 October

[wsis at iprolink.ch]

Dear all,

Today the intersessional negotiation Group went through paras 11-31 in DT26
(Implementation and Follow-up). You can find reports from the morning and
afternoon session below.

Best regards,
Jette Madsen


Intersessional Negotiation Group, Thursday 27 October

At the morning briefing with Amb Karklins, we were today informed that,
following the request from EU yesterday, it would now be possible for all
stakeholders to have their position papers placed in the back of the room.

MORNING SESSION

At the morning session, the delegations went through para 11-20 in DT26. At the
beginning of the meeting, Karklins reminded that only 12 hours remained to
conclude on Political Chapeau, Financing Mechanisms, and Implementation and
Follow-up. He asked the delegations to be as constructive as possible and not
come in with random suggestions at this late stage. Night sessions will not be
a possibility in respect for the delegates who celebrated Ramadan. Further, he
reminded that they yesterday had agreed that paragraphs from DT9 would stay in
brackets to be reviewed in a second reading.

Para 11, 11a, 11b, 11c were agreed with few, mostly editorial changes. In para
11c, a reference to “older persons” was inserted.

Para 11d (training and education of women):
Russia had strong difficulties with the paragraph. They wanted the reference to
“civil society representatives” deleted and questioned the meaning of
“e-government process”. Either the paragraph should be deleted or made clearer.
The chair asked Russia to work on the text and come with new language by
tomorrow morning.

Iran asked that 7p from DT9 could be brought into the text. On this the chair
replied that 7p repeats para 10 in DT26. After having reconsidered its
proposal, Iran agreed that it was covered in para 10, but that it was pending
on the outcomes of the negotiations of para 10.

Para 11e
Thailand proposed insertion of “and use of assistive technologies” (agreed).

Para 11f:
Agreed with slight editorial changes

UK asked that old 7d on community volunteering could be included from DT9. US
supported re-incorporation and will lead consultations on how it can be done.

Paras 11g, h, i and j was agreed with few editorial changes.

Paras 11k (educational, scientific and cultural institutions):
US proposed to change “affordable” to “free” and that “and community
connectivity” should be amended after “improve it-literacy”. Cuba and Honduras
opposed the change of “affordable” to “free”. It was decided that US would work
on it and come up with a proposal at three.

Para 11l:
Language was changed so that it is consitent with para 35 in political chapeau:
“local and/or indigenous languages.”
UK(EU) proposed the amendment “and improving quality e-content”, but Canada
stated that the proposal did not make sense in this paragraph. It was decided
that EU should present a new paragraph on quality e-content at three.
11l was agreed.

Para 11m:
There were some discussions on if the paragraph should only refer to traditional
media as some delegations argued the original purpose of the paragraph had been,
or if the reference to new media should stay. Further, the delegates went into a
lengthy discussion on a comma. In the end, the paragraph was agreed with an
amendment of “inter alia” in front of radio and television.

Para 11n on freedom of press will await the results of consultations lead by
Norway and Iran on para 4-5 in Political Chapeau

Para 11o:
US wanted a reference to “proper disposal of ICT waste”
Egypt argued that as many developing countries do not have the resources to do
this, text about assisting developing countries in addressing this problem
should be added. Egypt will come up with new language.

Para 11p:
Discussion between Iran and US on the concept of “co-regulatory”. Chair asks the
two to exchange views bilaterally.

New para 11q:
Chile came up with a new proposal:
“Promoting the development of advanced research networks of national, regional
and international levels in order to improve collaboration in science,
technology and higher education.”
Karklins stated that on procedural grounds, he would refuse the proposal, but if
everybody was willing to accept the proposal as it stood, he would allow it to
be included. Objection from one single government would mean deletion.
The proposal was circulated in paper form and in the end of the meeting;
Karklins gave governments 15 seconds to object. As nobody objected, the
proposal was adopted referendum.

Para 12 with subparagraphs (disaster reduction)
Australia stated that it had many changes to the para and to save time, they
proposed a short meeting between interested delegations. Pakistan on behalf of
Asia wanted to introduce old o+n from DT9. It was decided that Australia and
Pakistan would lead informal consultations and present a result tomorrow.

Para 13 (Child helplines):
EU and US wanted to take out the specific reference to 3 and 4-digits (technical
problem)
Russia found the word “undertake” too strong and proposed it replaced with the
less binding “recommend” or “seek”
India raised the question of who will pay and proposed to insert language on
“mobilise resources”
Canada wanted to educate children on how to use emergency lines also
Chair proposed simplification: “We seek to make available children phone lines
in each country.”
Iran stated that developing countries don’t have the resources and that resource
problem should be accommodated, whereas US had a problem with “we seek to
mobilise resources”, if we meant the governments. Finally, it was decided that
will lead consulations on this.

Para 14 was agreed without discussion.

Para 15 was not touched as Karklins is consulting governments on this paragraph.
Para 16: agreed

Para 17: Karklins has conducted informal consultations on this also and results
leaved him to believe that the paragraph as drafted will be acceptable. Only El
Salvador had a problem with the paragraph and it was decided that the delegate
from here should consult his capital.
Agreed ad referendum

Para 18-19:
Russia insisted on inserting a reference to “the leading role of governments”.
This was opposed by Canada and USA and the paragraphs were left square
bracketed.

Para 20:
South Africa wanted “framework” changed to “mechanism” and was supported on this
by Iran, Brazil and Cuba (the latter arguing that the term already had been used
in para 61 in Geneva Declaration of Principles) whereas Canada opposed. It was
decided to move on and leave the two possibilities in brackets as the
discussion reflected more substantive differences.


AFTERNOON SESSION:

In the afternoon, the negotiations group came to the more contentious paragraphs
on international implementation. However, the session started with presentation
of new text that had been drafted on community volunteering, quality e-content
and children helplines

New para 11r: “Promoting volunteering service at the community level to help
maximize the developmental impact of ICTs.” (agreed)

New para 11s: “Strengthening the creation of quality e-content and innovative
applications at national, regional and international level.” The EU proposal
did not gain support and the EU was asked to reconsider its proposal.

New para 13: “We seek to make available child help lines in all countries and to
mobilise appropriate resources”
UK expressed surprise that the delegations could not at least agree on
freephone, international standards and all phones in principle. Karklins will
continue consultations.

Then they continued from para 21 (implementation at the national level).
Cuba proposed replacement of framework with mechanism. Both were kept in
brackets and the paragraph “agreed conditionally”, meaning that the final
decision on the terminology would depend on the rest of the document.

Then the negotiations moved back to new paras 10a and 10b (newest 6bis and 9B
that yesterday was included from DT9 on a request from G77):

Para10a: “International and regional organizations should assess and report
regularly on universal accessibility of nations to ICTs, with the aim of
creating equitable opportunities for the growth of ICT sectors of developing
countries.”
Was agreed as it stands in 28c in Geneva Plan of Action.

Para 10b: “Appropriate indicators and benchmarking, including community
connectivity indicators, should clarify the magnitude of the digital divide, in
both its domestic and international dimensions, and keep it under regular
assessment, and tracking global progress in the use of ICTs to achieve
internationally agreed development goals, including those of the Millennium
Declaration.”
Australia proposed insertion of a sentence in the end: “The development of these
should take place in a collaborative, cost-effective and non-duplicative
fashion.”
The paragraph will be revisited in the next reading.

Para 22 was agreed without major changes.

Para 23:
Canada proposed a reference to res. 57/270B in the chapeau to the paragraph.

Para 24 (Intergovernmental implementation and follow-up)
Iran proposed a new amendment in the end of para 24:
“In this regard, bearing in mind paras 11 and 12 of UN Res. 270B, request the UN
Secretary General to establish within the Chief Executive Board (CEB), a UN
Group on Information Society (UNGIS), chaired by ITU in collaboration with
UNESCO and UNDP, with the mandate to facilitate the implementation, evaluation
and follow-up of WSIS outcomes and to report to the coordination segment of
ECOSOC, for further follow up through functional commission on science and
technology.”

The delegations seemed to like the proposal, although some of them said they
would have to read it more carefully.

EU made another proposal: “The systemwide organisation of implementation
activities should follow res. 270 para 11 and 12. We therefore invite all
international organisation the relevance of their activities
 Request Secretary
General to submit a report by July 2006 that includes concrete proposals on
coordination as part of annual report to ECOSOC.” (quotation is incomplete)
The proposal could substitute language both in 26 and 24.

Chile asked for flexibilty for Secretary General to decide which institutions,
as it might be others than UNESCO, UNDP and ITU and proposed the Commission on
Science and Technology as the coordinating body. SG should submit an annual
report on implementation to the ECOSOC.

Egypt would preferred reporting to UN assembly “to widen the scope” and stated
that it maybe will come up with language tomorrow.

Para 27 (Multistakeholder implementation):
The African group wanted to delete the paragraph as they found the reference to
both “international” and “bottom-up” inconsistent. However, they wanted to keep
the Annex that is referred to in para 27.  Brazil, El Salvador, Cuba, Iran and
Japan wanted to keep both para 27 and the Annex.

On the other side, Canada, Australia and US wanted to delete the Annex and the
reference to moderation/facilitation by UN agencies in the end of para 27.
UK (EU) would also like to delete the annex and proposed a merging of 27 and 29:
“Multistakeholder implementation should be bottom-up. Where appropriate it
should be carried out along the action lines and themes of the Plan of Action
and facilitated by UN agencies. The experience of, and activities undertaken by
UN agencies in the WSIS process – notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP – should continue
to be used to their fullest extent. It should not require the creation of any
new operation bodies.

Chair proposed that the delegations would meet in the Canadian mission tomorrow
morning for informal discussions on Annex + paras 27 and 29.

Para 28 (indicators):
US and Australia proposed deletion.
Honduras (G77) did not wanted complete deletion – language should be
incorporated in 31.
Chile proposed to change the structure of the text and place paras 31-34 before
para 20.

Para 29
Australia and Canada expressed interest in the EU proposal (see above).

Russia propose amendment to para 29: “these agencies should play the leading
managerial role in organizing activities along action lines as mentioned in the
Annex.”

In relation to the discussions on para 29, Canada expressed that it was
increasingly concerned that the governments were discussing multistakeholder
implementation without the other stakeholders. In consequence, they should not
take any decisions on multistakeholder implementation before PrepCom-3, where
stakeholders can express their opinions.
Chair answered that he met with stakeholders every morning and that papers were
available in the back of the room as a reminder of stakeholder positions.

Para. 30:
EU proposes to move the paragraph higher up as it sets the premise for creating
the modalities of multistakeholder activities.

Chile asked that its proposal on the Commission on Science and Technology could
be inserted in the text. Karklins replied that he believed the Chilean proposal
in part already was covered in the Iranian proposal

Para 31:
Ghana wants to change “welcome” to “note” in front of “the launch of the Digital
Opportunity Index.” Canada object to this – either we welcome all or do not
mention any of tehm
Honduras (G77) propose inclusion of elements from para 28 included in para 31.
Karklins replied that it might be relevant to have one paragraph on measuring
icts and one on digital opportunity index. He will try to propose text that
takes this into account tomorrow morning.
Iran would like a reference to UN statistical commission.

Tomorrow morning, the session will start with outstanding issues in political
chapeau and chapter 2, and then the negotiation group will move on to
implementation and follow-up.

Jette Madsen
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail: wsis at ngocongo.org
Website: www.ngocongo.org

The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that
facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and
decisions.Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of
NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on
issues of global concern.  For more information see our website at
www.ngocongo.org