[WSIS CS-Plenary] ECOSOC session Last days July 26 - 27 - 28

[Dr. Francis MUGUET]

Dear friends

Français: Je vais faire un résumé
  dans les prochains jours.

Sorry to send you belatedly this report, but
then I was caught in the deadline for the IGF,
and then in other things.

Some parts of the reports are coming
from a previous draft I wrote "on site",
the other part are coming
from the top of my head and are less precise.

--------------------------------------------------

First, some issues must be clarified.
We are not in a session of the CSTD, but in an
ECOSOC special meeting dealing with the reform
of the CSTD.
I put on the web sites wsis-si.org and wsis-pct.org
in the page dedicated to ECOSOC, some references
to rules of procedures .
It is stated that ECOSOC may amend the rules of
its functionnal commissions, but only ECOSOC may do that,
the Commission itself cannot amend its rules.
It is now that the rules of procedures ( and therefore
the Civil Society participation ) for the CSTD are to be decided.

Secund, according to the ECOSOC rules, as G77/ZA invokes them, and
which I experienced first hand myself during
the regular CSTD session in May,
on Science and Technology topics,
I was asked to leave the room, when
  negotiations began on the text of the draft resolution.
In May , I was discussing with Mamadou Dialo,
the representative from Mali, about the draft he had in hands.
Even at the request of Mamadou Dialo, the room officer that came to
expell me, she was inflexible, and she refused even to give me
a copy of draft of the resolution before leaving the room.

So according to the ECOSOC rules that I experienced in May,
at the yet unreformed CSTD,  what observers were able is to do was :
to listen to a series of formal speeches ( most of the them
were very boring reports )
and to have the possibility to ask a few questions to the
speaker. That's all.
So if we extrapolate to reformed CSTD,
only from the existing CSTD rules and working practises,
we might expect a long series of reports about
  WSIS progresses followed by assessments from various governments.

It is far worse that the WSIS rules of PrepCom I Phase I.

Now governments in ECOSOC may decides to adopt different
rules of procedure for its functional commission, instead
of the default one.  It is my understanding that this is indeed
the case for some of them, as it was for the Human Rights
( now a higher instance than a commission ).

So what does ZA/G77 advocate is to continue to use
strict ECOSOC rules in the reformed CSTD.
-------------

I was not in Geneva on Tuesday 25.

Wednesday July 26

The regress progressed....

Karklins with a note sent in the morning to the delegations quoted a few 
paragraphs of the draft adopted by the Commission on Science and 
Technology for Development at its Ninth session in May 2006e
Requests United Nations system entities engaged in the implementation of 
the Geneva and Tunis outcomes of the World Summit for the Information 
Society to collaborate closely with the Commission on Science and 
Technology for Development by providing it with periodic reports on the 
progress made in the implementation of the main themes and Action Lines 
of the World Summit for the Information Society, with a view to enabling 
the Commission to monitor, review and appraise progress achieved and 
problems encountered in the implementation, and to advise the Council 
thereon.
It must be noticed that the word “monitor” is in the text.

There was a funny preamble,
I started to seat where CS used to seat the previous
meeting I attended. ( ie at the left of the chair ).
(  EU & US were seated at the right, and G77 in the center ),
but some reasons, the center was used by other diplomats,
As the room was beginning to get filled
Henri Raubenheimer and all the G77's men started
to seat in the center back.
However, on Tuesday the G77 was seated on his left
(I was unaware of this fact ), and
  Karklins did like that ppsition, so he asked me to leave
this place so that G77 could be nearer from him.
Henri joked that he did not want to "displace"
the CS, but I displaced myself anyway... ;-) !

The session startup on OP10, the crucial
paragraph on multi-stakeholder approach.
EU started by proposing to remove "upon approval by ECOSOC",
so that all WSIS accredited CS are automatically approved to participate.
EU quoted the case of some Human Rights organizations
G77/ZA strongly objected saying that is the was the sovereign
prerogative of states to reject some observers.

The USA proposed to replace "may  be invited"
  concerning BS by "shall be invited".
The G77/ZA delegate very ironically replied
that he cannot see how this could be done, unless
looking at yellow pages over the world to send
invitations !
The US delegate went suddenly mute...
Of course, what the US delegate really meant
was "shall be entitled to be invited" ( as I
immmedialty suggested privately to some
delegates and to apply also to CS ),
but no delegate proposed this alternate
wording.

Then back to OP4, the G77/ZA delegate
asked the EU representative what she meant
by "WSIS practises".

The EU diplomat was caught off guard,
began to hesitate, saying it was not text
but mainly a "spirit".

The finnish diplomat representing
the EU never participate to the WSIS
( unfortunately it was not Ambassador Numinem,
now ambassador in Rome, it would
have been a completely different story ),
most other diplomats in the EU never participated
to WSIS.

She asked other delegations to
provide more informations; and
  looked for help to the US delegate, who
never attened the WSIS either, and stay silent.
The G77/ZA delegate kept insisting, strenghtenning
his advantage.
The Canadian delegate who did participate to the WSIS
  was not there.  Australia was not there.
Nobody went to the rescue of the "WSIS practises".

Karklins, trying to ease the tension,
  then asked, with a rather confident tone,
  Charles Geiger to clarify this point,
expecting a good speech as usual.
But the WSIS executive secretariat,
always very talkative, stayed silent.
Karkins was obviously disconcerted.

This was most disapointing.

Karklins did not ask any of the CS
people to help clarify this crucial point,
despite my hand raisen,
and this is something that must kept
as a reproach to him.

This was the turning point of
the meeting.  The WSIS practices
and rules of procedures appeared
only as a notion, too vague to
be kept in the text.

I went to see privately some delegates
to tell tey there were written records of the
WSIS practices, that they did exist,
but simply they were not easily accessible,
that this was the way to defend the case, and
that the CSTD could even request the still
existing WSIS executive secretariat
to make a record and compilation
of those practises.
However, since most of the diplomats
in the room never attended the WSIS,
the unease could be felt.

I tried desperately
to seat in center front row
to make some clear sign that I wanted
to intervene on this point, but no avail.
CS has been completely silenced.
It was really frustrating.

Then there was a 20 minutes break.
EU and US staying in the room
and G77 prefering to conduct their
private consultation, in the hall, near the door.

I tried to have a few words with Henri,
the G77/ZA delegate suggesting the possibility of
refering the WSIS practises since they were
documented yet not easily accessible.
Not surprisingly,
he did not accept this suggestion. :-( !
He was very happy to have won this point,
I realized then that the cause was lost
We could not hope to have the WSIS practises
being mentionned.

On OP4. The stalemate continued concerning "monitor"
despite the morning note from Karklins.

At the end of the meeting, I told some developping
country delegates that they had completely miss
the point concerning the implementation of
the Tunis Agenda, that the "monitoring" of
the financial aspects has been completely forgotten,
that the CSTD has not receive any specific
"mandate" or "responsibility" to interface with
the specialized agencies of the UN system
eg UNDP, UNCTAD, World Bank, etc..
as well as the Digital Solidarity Fund
to take care of the implementation of the
Tunis Agenda.
I already sent a note ( in French only )
concerning obstacle to the
involvement of the Digital Solidarity Fund
in the CSTD process.
The delegate from Senegal did show up reportedly
  only on Monday.
It seems that only the Geneva plan of action,
whose implementation is already well structured,
was to be "monitored" by the reformed CSTD.
They suddenly seem very concerned, realizing
their mistake.
Some even asked me that the CS should mention
this point. I answer to them that
they should speak themselves, and that I cannot speak,
because of their very efforts to
silence the CS.
They became to have second thoughts about
the wisdom of their actions  ...
too late !!!


-----------------------------------------------
July 27 Morning.

Day of mourning for the "WSIS spirit".

I did not wish to attend this fatefull morning session,
in protest to the fact that no CS speaker
was allowed to utter a single word yesterday
when it was crucial to do so.

I did come however in the afternoon, and I was
able to get fresh "witness accounts" from
some diplomats during the ECOSOC plenary
and shortly after.

First a short review of the final text.

As expected, the final text is a full retreat
from EU,and USA and a victory for G77/ZA,
at least on the surface.

Any mention to WSIS practises has been removed in OP4.
What is being presented by the losers as a reference to WSIS
"experience" or "practise" has been displaced in the preamble :
Making no reference to any rule or practices amounts to
abide to default rules ie those of ECOSOC... :-( !

PP 10 bis
Welcoming the multi-stakeholder participation in the WSIS and in its 
follow-up as a constructive way of dealing with present and future 
challenges in building the information society,

It is clear that is wishfull reading to see any commitment or reference
to WSIS practises here.


OP3 : The only point where G77/ZA had conceded something is the on the
fact that the CSTD does not monitor the "progress of implementation"
but just "review and assess".
The EU proposal "examin" was a good compromise.
So the G77/ZA backpedaled on the only valid point they proposed :
a more efficient coordination.
It was more important to G77/ZA to remove any formal possibility
of WSIS-type mutlistakeholder procedures.
They were so obsessed with this point, that G77/ZA forgot completely
to organize in any formal way the "review and assess" of the progress
concerning Financial Mechanisms, the first item of the Tunis Agenda,!
a hotspot that could not be agreed in Geneva !
With which agencies the CSTD is going to coordinate for financial
mechanisms ?   Any plan ?  Any agenda or action lines ?
Any mention of the Digital Solidarity Fund ?
NOTHING.  G77/ZA did not defend well the interests of sustainable
developement.

OP8.	Decides that its future sessions will increasingly be conducted as
interactive dialogue;

only one dialogue ?
between whom ?  :-( !

OP9,  Does not abide by the Tunis Commitment to use open or
interoperable communication means. This is absolutely scandalous.

OP10
a) CS may participate, upon approval by ECOSOC in a timely manner.
  EU  and US complete retreat :  some CS entities accredited to WSIS
  may be barred from participating to the follow-up if ECOSOC decides so.
  CS entities that were not accredited to WSIS, must follow the long road
  ( 2 years at least, and with no certainty to get it )
  to become first accredited to ECOSOC, before being able to
  to be involved in the WSIS follow-up.
  This is great... really great flexibility for CS !!!

b) Although not present, Business interests have been supported
  by the WSIS executive secretariat ( yes, it does still exist, before
  migrating to UNCTAD ) and the US.
   Therefore Business ended with a greater flexibily than CS, but
   it must be noted however that Business entites are not entitled to a
permanent  status like the ECOSOC consultative status, so it would
unfair to say that they better treated that NGOs.
In fact both categories of stakeholders are mistreated, in different ways.
  By the way it is underlined that they   may participate, in the work
of the Commission in accordance with the rules of procedure of ECOSOC.
So the rules of ECOSOC do apply !!!!.
Business (CCBI) and  other BS reps
  were not there to help present a larger front to
defend multi-stakeholderism.
CCBI rep was on vacation, while CISCO rep was in another
seemingly more important meeting in the same building,

Some could ask what is then the meaning of
the controversial joint PrepCom2P2
declaration of some CS actors with BS,
if there no outcome of this
"declaration" ?

OP10c  just bla bla

Reporting :
OP11, 12, 13

Only reports by UN bureaucrats and governements are
planned.  CS and BS cannot submit reports and it even
of course out of question that any CS or BS speakers
could read a report during the ECOSOC session.		
	The only time I have seen CS persons spoke during
the CSTD session in May were "experts" invited on
a personnal basis by ECOSOC.
Then it is true that governements and observers may
ask questions to those experts.
Therefore, it is not hard to imagine the next
CSTD meeting on WSIS, if all goes according to G77/ZA
plans of the current CSTD extrapolation :
  A series of boring reports by bureaucrats and governments.
  during plenary meetings.
  I am unsure that if any observers are allowed to ask questions there.
  A series of reports by hand-picked "experts" that are listenned to
  mostly by governement "experts" ( not necessarily the same diplomats as
  the plenaries ) where observers may ask questions.

It worth noticing that the Global Alliance is not quoted
even once. So long for the GA embodying
the multi-stakeholder approach
at the reformed CSTD....


-------------------------

Thursday July 27 Afternoon
ECOSOC plenary and informal discussions.

Now, back to the disaster-recovery scene of the afternoon :

A diplomat, ( seemingly preoccupied
by my yesterday's remarks )
among one of the G77 countries told me
that EU was not in a position to teach lessons
concerning observers, since allegdly,a NGO called
"South Center" as been expelled ( as an observer )
from some UNCTAD negotations by the EU.
( In fact, after some digging today
I found that "South Centre"
http://www.southcentre.org/
was not a NGO but an intergovermental
organization. )

Meanwhile,
The ECOSOC plenary was a series of boring reports
and prepared speeches by governements,
somewhat reminiscent of Soviet style boring meetings.
This is the fate that is waiting for us, for the
"WSIS coordination".
May be the only emotional instant was when
the delegate of Palestine intervened.
Faces became more tense, people did listen somewhat,
but that's did not last long after the end of this
speech.

Seeing the triumphant face of the G77/ZA delegate
in the plenary, it made no doubt about who appeared
as the winner of the day.
Western diplomats were subdued and concerned,
they told me that the negotiations
had been very tough but they had 'no other choice".
Of course, I differ, you have always a choice,
as I said to them.

Anyway all diplomats either from Western countries
or from G77 ( except ZA of course )
warmly supported the idea of making a written
record of WSIS practises.

------------------------------

Friday 28 July

The ECOSOC plenary ended sooner than expected.
It was held only during
the morning. There was no plenary in the afternoon.

Reportdly, there were good speeches in the
Plenary session of the ECOSOC concerning the
multi-stakeholder approach in the WSIS.

The Statement by Mr. José Antonio Ocampo, Under-Secretary-General for 
Economic and Social Affairs to the closing session of the 2006 
Substantive Session of the Economic and Social Council Geneva,
was clearly  prepared a little too much in advance,
and  out of sync with
recent developments ( still quoting the Global Alliance.. ).

Here is one important paragrah of the
Press release
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ecosoc6239.doc.htm
  ( only the one in English, the
one in French does not include it ... ) :
---------
In the context of the recommendations contained in the report of the 
Commission on Science and Technology for Development on its ninth 
session (E/2006/31), the Council decided to defer consideration of the 
report of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development to 
its resumed substantive session, in light of the resolution on the 
follow-up to the World Summit for the Information Society, and to 
examine the recommendations in the report with a view to aligning them 
with that resolution.
---------

Therefore the ECOSOC session is not finished, it is simply adjourned,
and to be resumed in September or October.
No dates are given.
As some diplomats said to me that afternoon,
we have therefore yet another chance
to defend the mutli-stakeholder approach, but we better
have a documented record of WSIS practises ready.

--------------
End of report.

Is is suggested that the WSIS executive secretariat, jointly
with the CSB and interested parties ( any help is welcome )
should publish a booklet of "WSIS practises".
There are signs that the WSIS executive secretariat
might be willing to do this, but this must be confirmed.

We must be prepared to act alone however,
if the WSIS executive secretariat does not help.
This might be the matter of further discussions.
I stop there !
That's all folk for today !

Best regards

Francis

-- 

------------------------------------------------------
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
Associate Publisher
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

ENSTA   Paris, France
KNIS lab.  Director
"Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS)
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web

UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org
------------------------------------------------------