[WSIS CS-Plenary] (no subject)

[Jane Johnson]

 Dear all

As promised please find below as promised the sketch report on the 
consultation this noon. I am just forwarding the report as it was given to 
me.

Jane
 
 
Sketch Report from informal consultations on stakeholder participation.
 
Karklins:
 
Started by saying that this should be a 1 time solution, setting no 
precedence. WSIS is not a typical summit – because of inclusiveness and 
multistakeholder participation. However we are guided by the UN constitution 
and rules of procedure esp. rule 44. 


Pakistan then spoke about the possibility of creating drafting groups. We 
are in a grey zone – moments when what rules should apply. 
 
Karklins then proceeded with 2 suggestions:
 
1. A GFC type option – CS in the room but leave at the finalizing of the 
drafting


2. Non Proliferation Treaty – constructive ambiguity. The chair decides. 
Otherwise we are silent observers. 1 guest from each observer group would be 
allowed in the room.  
 
Several Countries:  including African grp. Iran, Brazil, South Korea 
Algeria, Russia and China (not necessarily in that order) – said that there 
was no precedents, this is a UN process, we must stick to the rules of 
procedure. Negotiations are done only by governments. 
 
Other Countries: This is a process about openness and transparency, and that 
we all benefited from the process of exchange and producing language. 
 
Canada: compromise – discretionary power left up to the chair.
 
Karklins:
Didn’t feel that there was a consensus. So his suggestion was that: 
observers speak and leave + chair informs other stakeholders on the results 
of drafting, before consideration by the subcommittee. 
 
 
 
2 CS positions:
 
Divina – there as education TF coordinator and as such, member of the 
Bureau. We understood the positions of the nation states at this point of 
the negotiations. We would push at least for option 2, because in order to 
make meaningful input we need to have observers that report back. And maybe 
there could be a bureau to bureau meeting on procedures and how to report 
back. Point of clarification on: what happens to the CS members of the 
delegations – confidentiality.  


Only point 2 was picked up. Karklins read from rules and procedures that: 
The delegations can take all their delegates

in the drafting process. 
Pakistan reinforced this point at the end. 
  


APC said that there was no way CS claimed to be doing negotiations and 
referred to section 32.2 about the possibility to observe and report. 


1 observer from Internet Society representing a whole group of internet 
interests including ICANN. The Internet community had created the Internet. 
Internet had allowed for new forms of participation and will continue to do 
so. There should be no fear of participation by stakeholders.
 
Karklins answered that the summit was not just about the Internet. 
 
At the moment Russia has to go back and consult with her delegation. 3 
drafting groups formed by Khan. The principle of full partnership has not 
passed
.although we it seems we might be allowed in.
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050923/882b5186/attachment.htm