[WSIS CS-Plenary] Evaluation and documentation of CS in WSIS

[Dr. Francis MUGUET]

Dear Tracey

> Hello All
>
> I am fascinated that the need for CSB 'reform' persists. I have a 
> different view that concurs with that submitted by Al Alegre. My view 
> is that the role of the CSB concluded at the end of the WSIS 
> negotiations and that the thread that links that process with on going 
> discussions is the Internet Governance Caucus, though this may well 
> limit the topics worthy of on-going efforts.
>
I repeat in part what that I just posted
 answering to the original message by
 Al Alegre and the bureau

There are two perspectives,
1/ the WSIS as a show, in my own opinion a
rather superficial one ( the show is over, lets pack our stuff ),
2/ the WSIS is a process,  this perspective is more responsible
in the sense that one fully knows that to get recommandations
adopted is one thing, to get them implemented is anoher
yet more difficult task.

Another point is that the WSIS is an unfinished business
on issues of substance :
1/ the governance is still a matter of hot debate, the only thing
that has been agreed is that we must talk about it further.!!!
2/ no internationnal governmental financial mechanism to bridge
the digital divide has been proposed, there are a few alternative
financial mechanism that have been proposed that needs to
be either reinforced or discussed.

Concerning implementation, the fight to get the WSIS
recommendations to be even quoted and implemented as such
( and not as a vague reminder ) is going to very tough,
as I had the experience with UNESCO during its last
33rd conference.

Therefore it quite clear that the
 WSIS process is not concluded, the hard part is only beginning.

The WSIS has determined
several implementation and follow-up mechanims that still needs to
be organized. There are a lot of procedural issues that are
going to be negotiated between the Civil Society and
the executive secretariats of the various of the various
follow-up bodies.

If there is no more Civil Society Interlocutor to interact with,
then the interest of the Civil Society will be not adequately
and inclusively defended.  If  CSB  were to dissolve,
and I stress there is absolutely no consensus on this
point at the CSB,  this would be like
abandonning its post, betraying its mission.

Concerning the general structure of the Civil Society,
it is clear that it would a complete waste of energy
not to keep its present structure for the follow-up.
It would be rather inefficient to abandon a structure
with whom governments a,d diplomats has taken so much
time to recognize and to get acquainted with.

The last meeting in Geneva
BRIEFING FOR NGOS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE WSIS
7 December 2005  was well attended
both from the side of Civil Society and Governments.
 Utsumi and Karklins were present, and
there were enlightenning discussions.
While it was regrettable that logistics prevented many people
from distant countries to attend
( like all the GFCs meetings by the way ),
 it clearly demonstrated that the WSIS process was alive.
In fact, we recorded on video all this event, along with special
interviews of Utsumi and Kanrlins towards the goal
to make it available to all with our P2Ptelevision
 software on WSIS.TV
Our software is not yet ready to be released, so this
video material should be available in late February
or March.

Now concerning the need of a CSB reform.
After the first phase, the Bureau held a first "reform"
while removing inactive families with
objective criteria.
Such kind of reform could be held again assessing
various objective criteria that must be discussed
beforehand.

Best regards

Francis

> I believe that the structures that were developed within WSIS, their 
> method of formation, the terms under which they worked (equally the 
> lack of terms though it should be remembered that the WGWM developed a 
> CSB Charter) need to be documented for the sake of posterity, to 
> advance multi-stakeholder processes and as a starting point for future 
> civil society participants in global governance negotiations. Such a 
> documentation could also incorporate reflections on the experience as 
> proffered by those who wish to do so. The documentation would be a 
> quantitative contribution where as the reflections from the willing 
> and the connected would form a more textural analysis, or a 
> qualitative component.
>
> Since CONGO was the Secretariat for the CSB and WSIS Plenary it would 
> seem the logical focal point for such a documentation and reflection. 
> However, given the pace at which that body has to move with UN 
> negotiations and the limitations of it's resources it may not be 
> possible. Such a work would likely require a focal point to galvanise 
> participation (as per the role of Ralph in the CS statement) and 
> resources.
>
> I think it would be well worth doing but cannot quite see from where I 
> sit how it can be achieved.
>
> Warm regards to all,
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
>
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
> NYAKA
>
> Communication for Development Consultant
>
> 201 Somerset Hall
>
> 239 Oxford Road
>
> Illovo     2196
>
> Johannesburg
>
> South Africa
>
>
> landline & fax:    +27 (0) 11 880 5030
>
> cell / mobile:    +27 (0) 82 821 1771
>
> skype:       tracey_naughton
>
> email:        tracey at traceynaughton.com <mailto:tracey at traceynaughton.com>
>
>
>
>


-- 

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