[WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform consultation (1 Feb. 2006)

Thu Feb 2 19:00:25 GMT 2006

Thank you Philippe for sharing these notes with us. It is very insightful to
see what will happen to ITU in light of WSIS and the openness to change. 

Meanwhile, also thanks Jean-Louis Fullsack for reminding us on the process
(in the email before this)  to make changes at the ITU - i.e. through
delegations and the Plenipot to have the Constitution and Convention
amended. This will indeed be a very interesting year that may give a new
window for more change to ITU. As you correctly pointed out, the World
Telecom Development Conference, is the once every four year conference. For
sure though, the WSIS results will and should impact the delegates reviewing
the next 4 year plan for ITU-D and so some interaction or feedback process
through delegations or otherwise may be useful. They do have much to
accomplish there though, reviewing the last 4 years and planning ahead, so
CS should give some thought to what inputs it would like to make to have it
"listened to".

WRT to the point  raised on ITU-D, it may be interesting for some to note
that the concept for an ITU-D was only officially adopted at 1989 Plenipot
(before that they only had a technical cooperation division, working mainly
through UNDP) and only as a political compromise (many delegates did not
feel that ITU should be involved in development). This ITU-D still struggles
for wider financial support for its role in development from especially the
developed countries, and is usually asked to focus on telecom infrastructure
and regulatory development. I know they suffered a major cut in budget at
the last Plenipot. 

Meanwhile, UNDP and other agencies have now also got involved in bridging
the digital divide (including the World Bank).  Keep in mind, ITU's real
mandate used to be primarily to focus on "interoperability and
interconnectivity" (its founding values since 1865) and so it focused on
infrastructure issues of quality of service, standards, frequency
coordination (not even allocation) etc and NOT content or development(new
Internet and ICT4D issues). It was the Maitland commission report in 1984
and other pressures to "bridge the missing link" (it was called back then,
and yes, digital divide has a broader implication than missing link)
brought this "development" agenda into the ITU. So this is still relatively
new in the history of the ITU and it is not as fully funded or "developed"
as many developing countries would like it to be, and so it still  requires
the support of other agencies and private sector to make projects happen at
a greater scale than they have monies for. 

I found it therefore interesting therefore to see most of the comments from
some government delegates was to limit CS to ITU-D.Perhaps they don;t see CS
having issues in ITU-T and ITU-R traditionally looking at standards for
telecom and radio. CS will therefore need to articulate this better if it
wants greater involvement. Funding overall for ITU also remains a challenge
compared to its past history, and it would indeed require a creative
mechanism to see how things go forward for CS involvement, e.g. fee
exemptions or ad hoc participation based on interest as suggested in the
notes below. 

Bill noted that governments don;t seem to know what CS needs are, and this
could also be because they see ITU as an "infrastructure" organisation
focused on "interoperability and interconnectivity". Whilst there is some
"development of infrastructure work for the least developed countries" ,
they may not be quite sure how and when CS would like to be involved,
perhaps, Yes, ITU is new to CS, I would say compared to their working with
private sector since its early days of formation back in 1865.

Meanwhile, also found Amb Klarkins statement to remind that ITU should not
be the only organisation to be involved in WSIS follow-up. To large extent,
each agency may need to focus on its core competence and coordinate with the
rest. If ITU widens its scope at WTDC or ITU Plenipot, how will this be
supported, impact and need coordination with others. I know the others are
already widening their mandates e.g. UNESCAP. For sure each still needs to
review and change to reflect new players and new voices, to ensure that
useful and effective solutions are brought about for effective
implementation.

Thanks again Philippe for sharing this.

Laina  

  _____  

From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of CONGO - Philippe Dam
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:15 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org
Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] ITU reform consultation (1 Feb. 2006)

Dear all, 

Please find below a summary of the discussion during the consultation on ITU
Reform (1 February 2006, ITU, Geneva). With regard to better inclusion of
civil society in the work of the ITU and although some delegations and
Chairman Grin showed their reticence towards any change for better
inclusiveness, two ideas were brought into the discussion:

-          Opening up of sector membership within ITU-D to civil society
with no or much lower fees (Private sector, NGOs, and at the end of the
meeting Syria).

-          New modalities for participation or consultation beyond / in
addition to existing modalities for ITU membership (NGOs, Switzerland,
Italy).

Information on this meeting:
http://www.itu.int/reform/Council-Res-1244/index.html,
http://www.itu.int/reform  

The on-line forum will remain open to collect new ideas on this issue
(http://www.itu.int/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=428
<http://www.itu.int/jive/forum.jspa?forumID=428&start=0> &start=0).  

Best regards

Consultation on ITU Reform

ITU Council WG on WSIS

1 February 2006

A few delegations expressed some general comments at the beginning of the
meeting. Russia mentioned that WSIS would impact on the evolution of ITU
terms of reference. New approaches should be considered for tackling WSIS
action lines, and Russia insisted on the need to broaden ITU's mandate to
replicate all WSIS issues under the ITU. Syria later on also stated that
Internet Governance issues should also be dealt with by the ITU. Ambassador
Karklins answered to Russia that ITU should focus on its own mandate for
themes and actions lines, though playing an important role in the
implementation and follow-up process, based on ITU Council Decisions. He
highlighted the need for deeper interactions to be established with civil
society, NGOs and the private sector. 

Renate Bloem (Conference of NGOs) drew attention to the last-minute
possibility for some non-ITU member NGO representatives to attend the
meeting, stressing their willingness to also be much more deeply involved in
this overall reflection on ITU reform. Syria answered that non State actors
are already involved in the work of the ITU through Sector membership for
more than 600 entities, provided that they pay their dues. 

ITU Vital Activities

There is quite an agreement to recognise that, although ITU-T
(Telecommunication Standardisation) and ITU-R (Radio-communication) should
not be abandoned, WSIS would have a strong impact on the work of ITU-D
(Development), taking into account the provisions of WSIS outcomes and
reconsidering the structures of this sector. Syria proposed that ITU-D
should also deal with processing, in addition to infrastructures, and
stressed that ITU-D should be in charge of Action Line 5 on security.
Vanuatu and Japan stressed ITU-D role in bridging the digital divide. 

Canada and the USA pointed out the member driven approach and the importance
of ITU member inputs. USA and Australia mentioned that a strong reference
should be given to paragraph 64 of the Geneva Declaration of Principles to
define the up-coming core activities of the ITU. 

ITU member Private Sector (Cisco System, Compass Rose) and non-for-profit
(AfriNIC) highlighted the need for more strengthened relationships with
other actors in the post-WSIS environment with private sector, small
companies, civil society and NGOs to increase the inclusiveness and
cooperation in the vital activities of the Union. On the question of
membership fees, Compass Rose called for more consideration to the financial
situation of potential members: ITU-D is a portal for sector members from
developing countries, gender agencies, youth organisations, so that a new
participation approach should be made more affordable for all and more
efficient. 

ITU activities that must be cutback

Only minor activities should be abandoned, in line with the content of the
ITU strategic, operational and financial plan to be adopted at the next
Plenipotentiary Conference. Lower priority issues as established in this
strategic plan would have to automatically be abandoned by the ITU,
depending on available resources. 

Civil society participation

The first delegations to take the floor expressed their preference for a
statu quo. Indeed Italy mentioned that ITU is already open to all legal
entities, and that non members could also participate through their national
delegations. Syria proposed that all civil society should appear under the
appellation of sector members as well, with the same conditions for
membership, including ITU rules for fee exemption when applicable. Max-Henri
Cadet, head of ITU External Affairs Unit, clarified the various memberships
and related fees (4.000 CHF for ITU-D Sector members, 2.000 CHF for ITU-D
associate members) and the conditions for fees exemption (the entity must
represent a specific value for the ITU), as well as why it is a 'good
investment' for civil society to become ITU member. 

Renate Bloem underlined the change which had come to the ITU being the
leading agency in the WSIS process and embracing the new multi-stakeholder
approach. This approach was the logical consequence of former UN World
Conferences of the 90ies, each time more open, reflecting thus a change of
mindset in society and to some extent of the UN, as pointed out by Kofi
Annan last week in Davos. The WSIS process had clearly raised the
expectations of CS to also engage with the ITU in all follow up mechanisms.
In order to do this the ITU needs to adopt some consultative arrangement
with CS similar to other agencies. Membership fees - even the lowest - are
still out of range for most of CS. The ITU, in wanting to help bridge the
digital divide, would gain from civil society expertise on the ground and
also from technical expertise in many areas. After WSIS it would be quite
anachronistic for the ITU to fall back into its old patterns. 

Switzerland supported that point of view, stressing ITU should find its own
way for civil society participation, taking into account ITU financial
problems and in accordance with ITU rules. Civil society approach could
indeed allow for more concrete and efficient projects for ITU. Chairman Grin
distinguished CS in WSIS implementation and CS in core ITU sectors. Italy
took the floor a second time to clarify that civil society views would be
more useful in societal issues, which are more concentrated within ITU-D,
whereas the other ITU sectors are much more technical in nature. Syria also
proposed to evaluate further possibilities to better involve in WSIS
implementation, which could be limited to ITU-D sector. WSIS implementation
activities should also reinforce ITU capacity to build networks. Compass
Rose (Private Sector) also supported a broader opening of at least ITU-D to
civil society and small companies. 

William Drake (CPSR) highlighted that ITU is the only organisation both
within and outside of the UN where civil society has so many access
problems. He stressed that ITU membership should actually be changed in
terms of fees and criteria. However civil society entities do not only want
to be sector members but would like to be able to come in workshops  and
conferences as observers in a more flexible way, without having any
additional cost for the ITU. AfriNIC also supported additional ways of
participation for civil society, beyond the current membership. That is what
Chairman Grin interpreted as a willingness to participate without
obligation. However the discussion opened some alternative options to
membership for participation of civil society. 

Change in the name of ITU

Syria and Russia supported the change of ITU name, as proposed by the Arab
Group, to adapt to new realities of the expended role of the organisation.
But there was no support for such an initiative, because of the cost it
would imply and the questioning of ITU well-established trademark.

External aspect: ITU activities to implement Summit decisions

Syria proposed that ITU should more focus on internet issues, because member
states should play a leading role in this area. Syria suggested the
organization of an ITU Internet Forum in April 2007 about the role of
governments in the internet governance. 

There is a general agreement that ITU should have a leading role in only
implementing the Action Lines and themes as defined on the Annex to the
Tunis Agenda (Cisco, Latvia, Bulgaria). The ITU work program should reflect
these key areas on specific projects that can be implemented with the
available budget (Alcatel, Bulgaria). Ambassador Karklins (Latvia) insisted
on the fact that ITU should not impose its leading role on issues which
naturally belong to other organisations, but contribute and collaborate with
international agencies. Referring to the up-coming meeting on 24 February,
he also stressed that ITU should not infringe on the establishment of the
leading facilitating role to be played by the ITU, UNESCO and UNDP, to be
set up by the UN SG, and on the ECOSOC activities, which only belongs to
member States. Chairman Grin, answering this remark, noticed that ITU,
UNESCO and UNDP were asked by the UN SG to hold some consultation about
that.

At the end of the meeting, Max-Henri Cadet announced the on-line open
consultation forum would remain active for additional comments on the ITU
reform from non ITU members. The ITU Secretariat will therefore continue to
collect ideas in this regard, until better solution for civil society
participation would be established within the ITU structures.

Philippe Dam
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mail:  <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org> wsis at ngocongo.org
Website:  <BLOCKED::http://www.ngocongo.org> 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 <BLOCKED::http://www.ngocongo.org/> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20060202/d9630c3a/attachment.html