[WSIS CS-Plenary] Draft Statement for Sub-Committee B (for Tuesday afternoon)

[John Fung]

bertrand,
 
thanks for doing it for the group.
my comments below, marked in red:
 
===
 
In November, the Summit itself will be over. Geneva produced valuable
Principles and a comprehensive Agenda for Action. Tunis must now produce
a follow-up framework for getting things done. This framework must be
both efficient and flexible. 

 

It is not efficient enough to merely encourage actors to keep doing what
they have always done. The present GFC draft is much too weak. We all
need stronger commitments from governments and more enabling
mechanisms. 

 

(note: i have changed structured to enabling because we ask for
flexibility right in the next paragraph. any structure will imply a
compromise on flexibility...so i suppose my change here is purely
rhetorical)

 

Flexibility is the second criterion : nobody wants a heavy architecture,
cast in concrete for eternity, but rather an enabling framework. The
proposals discussed at PreCom2 could generate a rigid, hierarchical and
top-down  mechanism that could stifle initiatives and establish control
under the guise of coordination. 

 

In this first meeting of Sub Committee B, and before a decision is made
on which document or model discussions will be based upon, we want to
outline some key components that any framework must contain to be
efficient and flexible.

 

The following key benchmarks will guide our drafting amendments in the
coming days :

 

1)     Any framework must reaffirm the key principles of the Geneva
Declaration and Plan of Action, including :

a.      Sustainable development

b.     The respect of human rights and particularly freedom of
expression

c.      Women's empowerment and gender equality

d.     Non-discrimination

2)     Any framework should be based on a multi-stakeholder approach,
and we strongly oppose the deletion of the terms "full and effective" to
qualify CS participation in the most recent GFC draft; 

3)     Any framework should address the national, regional and
international levels but also articulate them; 

4)     Regular Review Meetings must be held to allow all actors to
review progress in an open and multi-stakeholder format. This means more
frequent and concise meetings than usual +5 and +10 Summits. It also
means more than the insertion of a few paragraphs in an annual report by
the Secretary General to Ecosoc or the UN GA(.) Frequency and convenors
of such Thematic, Regional and Global review meetings should be
discussed with civil societies representatives;

5)     Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues in
larger Thematic Clusters, taking into account the Geneva Action Lines
tangibly;

6)     Any framework should encourage the formation of Thematic
Multi-stakeholder Initiatives, ideally with a minimum of common criteria
for their formation and  functioning;

7)     All international organizations, according to their mandate or
geographical competence, should integrate with their own activities the
outcomes of the WSIS and actively support and facilitate the Thematic
Multi-stakeholder Initiatives that emerge;

8)     Governments should individually "pledge" to establish, at the
national level, "multi-stakeholder implementation frameworks" to define
e-strategies, facilitate concrete initiatives and provide open policy
fora for debate;

9)     A Global Policy Debate is needed. Paragraph 35 of the GFC
document should not only be maintained but made even more precise. The
possible articulation with the forum function envisaged in Internet
Governance should be clarified. 

10) Finally, Resolution 57/270 B in no way prevents the WSIS to
establish a specific and more efficient follow-up mechanism, as the 2003
report to the General Assembly on Resolution 57/270 has clearly
established. 

 

We will come back with details of each of these points in the coming
days. We sincerely thank the Chair for establishing this flexible and
efficient mechanism for interaction in this Sub-Committee. 

 

================= 

 
thank you.
 
 
 
 
John Yat-chu FUNG, PhD, RSW
Director, Information Technology Resource Centre
Direct Line: (852) 2864 2971
Fax: (852) 2865 0823
ITRC Website: itrc.hkcss.org.hk <http://itrc.hkcss.org.hk/> 
HKCSS Website: www.hkcss.org.hk 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On
Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:24 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: followup at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Draft Statement for Sub-Committee B (for
Tuesday afternoon)


Dear all,
 
Following a first meeting of the Group on Sub-Committee B (aka Working
Group on Implementation and Follow-up) monday evening, please find below
the draft intervention for Tuesday afternoon session. This will be the
first session of the committee and no agreement has so far been reached
by governments on which text the discussion will start upon. 
 
In this context, the choice has been made to focus the ipreliminary
ntervention on a few basic principles and components, building on
previous CS statements from the last two years. This will form the basis
for more concrete formulations in the coming days, once we know the text
that will form the basis for negociation. 
 
Comments are welcome. but the final version will have to be finalized by
lunchtime tuesday and the presentation should not last longer than three
to four minutes (Nnenna will pronounce it). So please rather edit than
add. 
 
Thanks for taking the time to read this. The draft is sent to the
Plenary for today, but successive interventions will be circulated on
the newly opened followup mailing list (please subscribe at :
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/followup
 
Best
 
Bertrand
 
Draft TEXT (word version attached)
 
 

Statement on behalf of Civil society Working group on WSIS
Implementation and Follow-up 

Sub-Committee B - WSIS PrepCom3 - Sept 20, 2005

 

In November, the Summit itself will be over. Geneva produced valuable
Principles and a comprehensive Agenda for Action. Tunis must now produce
a follow-up framework for getting things done. This framework must be
both efficient and flexible. 

 

It is not efficient to merely encourage actors to keep doing what they
have always done. The present GFC draft is much too weak. We all need
stronger commitments from governments and more structured mechanisms. 

 

Flexibility is the second criteria : nobody wants a heavy architecture,
cast in concrete for eternity, but rather an enabling framework. The
proposals discussed at PreCom2 could generate a rigid, hierarchical and
top-down   mechanism that could stifle initiatives and establish control
under the guise of coordination. 

 

In this first meting of Sub Committee B, and before a decision is made
on which document or model discussions will be based upon, we want to
outline some key components that any framework must contain to be
efficient and flexible.

 

The following key benchmarks will guide our drafting amendments in the
coming days :

 

1)      Any framework must reaffirm the key principles of the Geneva
Declaration and Plan of Action, including : 

a.       Sustainable development

b.      The respect of human rights and particularly freedom of
expression 

c.       Women's empowerment and gender equality

d.      Non-discrimination

2)      Any framework should be based on a multi-stakeholder approach,
and we strongly oppose the deletion of the terms "full and effective" to
qualify CS participation in the most recent GFC draft; 

3)      Any framework should address the national, regional and
international levels but also articulate them; 

4)      Regular Review Meetings must allow all actors to review progress
in an open and multi-stakeholder format. This means more frequent and
lighter meetings than usual +5 and +10 Summits. It also means more than
the insertion of a few paragraphs in an annual report by the Secretary
General to Ecosoc or the UN GA   Frequency and convenors of such
Thematic, Regional and Global review meetings should be discussed;

5)      Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues
in larger Thematic Clusters , taking into account the Geneva Action
Lines but without making them intangible;

6)      Any framework should encourage the formation of Thematic
Multi-stakeholder Initiatives , ideally with a minimum of common
criteria for their formation and  functioning;

7)      All international organizations, according to their mandate or
geographical competence, should be instructed to integrate in their own
activities the outcomes of the WSIS and to actively support and
facilitate the Thematic Multi-stakeholder Initiatives that emerge; 

8)      Governments should individually "pledge" to establish, at the
national level, " multi-stakeholder implementation frameworks" to define
e-strategies, facilitate concrete initiatives and provide open policy
fora for debate;

9)      A Global Policy Debate is needed. Paragraph 35 of the GFC
document should not only be maintained but made even more precise. The
possible articulation with the forum function envisaged in Internet
Governance should be clarified. 

10)  Finally, Resolution 57/270 B in no way prevents the WSIS to
establish a specific and more efficient follow-up mechanism, as the 2003
report to the General Assembly on Resolution 57/270 has clearly
established. 

 

We will come back in more detail on each of these points in the coming
days. We sincerely thank the Chair for establishing this flexible and
efficient mechanism for interaction in this Sub-Committee. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050920/b1ee5214/attachment.html