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

Tue Sep 20 07:18:01 BST 2005

Thanks very much. Will integrate the comments this morning. 
 Best
 Bertrand

 On 9/20/05, John Fung <john.fung at hkcss.org.hk> wrote: 
> 
> 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 Linestangibly
> ;
> 
> *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 <http://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/20050920/8f474228/attachment.htm