AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Monday session on WSIS
Dr. Francis MUGUET
muguet at mdpi.org
Thu Jul 20 00:01:39 BST 2006
Dear Wolfgang
>
>
>
I wish you were there in Geneva.
>thanks for the detailed report. It keeps all of us informed and we feel the strange astmosphere in the conference hall.
>
>
>
Surrealistic... is the word by the delegate from El Salvador,
surrealistic that the follow-up of the
largest ever UN conference being handled in this way, with so few people,
( and more than half of the diplomat never having been at the WSIS,
which seems like
an UFO to them )
>The conflict does not come as a surprise. The multistakeholder debate of WSIS never went beyond Geneva and WSIS. In NY, the Cardozo report was moved after a short discussion from the agenda. Insofar it can be seen as an achievement that ECOSOC and CSTD are discussing at length the subject.
>
>
not enough on substance, mostly on grammar
>
>I fully support your idea to formalize the stakeholder interaction and to amend the rules of procedure or at least to refer diplomatically to the "WSIS practicice", which in fact was in contrast to the language of Rule 55 of the WSIS Rules of Procedures, adopted during PrepCom1 in 2002 (and undermined step by step until Tunis).
>
Could you be so kind to send the plenary and/or the URL of those WSIS
Rules of Procedures.
This is an interesting document to refer to.
>
>
>I also support your idea to take the IGF (WGIG) as a model and to push for similar designs in CSTD activities. One concrete proposal could be to launch a "sub-group on multistakeholderism" which could come with some more precise ideas how the interaction among the stakeholders could be organized and formalized. Remember that also the WGIG report did not propose any concrete mechanism for interaction among stakehooders but did define - and this can be taken as a starter - the specific "roles and responsibilities" which are complementary indeed.
>
>Such a subgroup would have to have members from all stakeholder groups. The group could report back to the next CSTD meeting. There is no need to be in a hurry, but this is, as you have pointed out so clearly, a matter of principle.
>
>
>
The idea that I have been putting forward, the
inspired by the anonymous staff person :
Sub-Commission for multi-stakeholder approach proposal
<http://www.wsis-si.org/ECOSOC/MSHapproach-CSTD-Subsidiary-groupV2.html>
is may be too admnistrative, in the sense it is a "Sub-commission",
may be (or may be not ) it would be better to propose it as
a "Forum for multi-stakeholder approach" without a reference
to the complicated hierarchical bureaucratic system of ECOSOC
Of course, some people have said that
this proposition might be opposed ( but may be, it is totally wrong to
say that,
because Sabular Khan seems a very nice person, and is attending the
ECOSOC/CSTD meeting )
by the Global Alliance that might want to appear as the sole avenue
for the multi-stakeholder approach.
CONGO astutely underlined that GA has a mandate for multi-stakeholder
approach
emcompassing all the UN system, and this fact prevent GA to embody the
specific multi-stakeholder approach for WSIS follow-up.
People told me that the GA meeting in Kuala-Lumpur was far from being a
success,
on many accounts.
There has been no account of this meeting on the plenary.
Could please one ot the CS attendees make us the favor of a short report ?
Were the CS people selected to the MAG present in Kuala Lumpur ?
By the way, Sabular Khan told me that GA advisory group was open ended
and that.
new members could le added at latter stages.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Thanks Francis for the detailed report. It helps a lot to udnerstand the zig-zag.
>As I said in an earlier Mial, one has to see it - regardless of the frustrating details - as a progress that the >"conservative NY/UN based ECOSOC/CSTD" (which is still thinking in terms of 20th century diplomacy)
This is exactly what is happening.
Diplomats want to show off to their capital that they are hard bargainers...
on grammar.... and far less on sustance...
> has started this debate. But it will need time that ECOSOC/UN will move foreward towards a 21st century diplomacy.
> Progress can be counted in milimeters only, but if we keep the pressure high (and demonstrate our constructive >approach, knowledgable skills and innovative capacity) things can look different in 2015 than now.
The problem is that the world cannot wait that long...
people in despair, people in need while the technology is evolving
> Happy to see that my proposal
If you had a formalized proposal, please let us know, that would
a good input to the current CS "non-paper".
> to establish a sub-group for multistakeholderism has been put on the table.
> If it is rejected this year, it should come back next year.
Unfornately, this might never not going to happen.
This ECOSOC session is very special in that it is about setting the frame
for the reformed CSTD for WSIS follow-up.
It is a "constitutional session" so to speak.
I am afraid that next year, once the frame is carved in stone,
the CSTD, as a mere functionnal commission,
might not have the opportunity to create such a Forum on its own,
at least without ECOSOC approval....
( which might means never, since to move the ECOSOC, it needs a Summit,
or the SG special instruction, or a GA resolution...
it is an incredible hierarchy )
The history is now babbling, and I am afraid not in the good direction.
Best regards
Francis
>Best wishes
>
>wolfgang.
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: Dr. Francis MUGUET [mailto:muguet at mdpi.org]
>Gesendet: Mo 17.07.2006 19:25
>An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSTD Monday session on WSIS
>
>
>
>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
>
>Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
>_______________________________________
>
>Hello,
>
>The session started with full suspense.
>Karklins told us that South Africa was still maintaining
>its position.
>Karklins started the meeting with a very vague sentence
>alluding that those who are attending
>"are allowed to stay there according
>to rules of procedures".
>Then some states asked for clarification, and Karklins
>asked a secretary of ECOSOC to explain the rules of procedure.
>She came five minutes later.
>She said that observers could be allowed to stay in ECOSOC
>sessions if attending governements allow it.
>The situation is quite diverse and she quoted examples
>of CS participation.
>Then Australia took the floor supporting the presense of CS,
>but at least being silent observers.
>EU supported Australia, US supported Australia.
>Then Chile intervened calling for a more active participation of
>Civil Society, suggesting a preliminary statement.
>Mexico supported.
>Then the South African/G77 delegate intervened ,
> he thanked the chair for the clarification, and
>rather hypocritically, he said
>he always supported Civil Society presence.
>Morroco asked what was the exact status of the talks.
>Karklins answered they were informal consultation towards
>negotiations.
>Then South African/G77 intervened again asking what was then
>the meaning of a "closed" meeting on the schedules ?
>( the argument he told us repeatdly during our conversations
>is that the meeting was "closed" ).
>The ECOSOC secretary answered is was simply an indication to the
>press, :-) !
>meaning that the Press was not allowed in closed meetings.
>No more objection from South Africa !
>
>This ended the procedural controversy
>to the advantage of CS, but we lost
>the right to make short suggestions during the discussion,
>which is still a big loss.
>
>Renate made a general statement (and she left
>some time after as she had to chair other conferences,
>while Alejandra staid.
> I guessed there will be a
> CONGO report of the session soon by Alejandra.
>Being not able to make any short suggestion is very frustrating.
>I went to a library upstair to make printouts of language
>propositions that I distributed to delegates.
>It is disapointing to say that unless you explain orally
>each strong points to each person, there is little impact.
>
>Tomorrow, since the paragraph being studied is the paragraph on
>Multi-Stakeholders I will ask in my preliminary statement that CS be
>allowed to make short interventions ( less than 3 minutes ) whenever
>appropriate during the discussion.
>I told the South African delegate about this idea,
>and this time, he said nothing,
>which would also help regain what we have lost
>in terms of informal procedural practises.
>
>An unexpected gain is that US proposed
>a new formulation of paragraph
>4 c that quoted "established rules of ECOSOC and WSIS"
>( I had lobbied very hard the previous to get WSIS added to ECOSOC,
>EU and Switzerland suppored it, but the US and China at that time
>opposed it , China was absent today)
>This paragraph is almost agreed.
>
>The big point that has NOT been addressed
>in my language suggestions so far is
>how the multi-stakeholder approach could be reflected in the
>reformed CSTD commission.
>A multi-stakeholder advisory group like for the IGF ?
>Unless some one has a better idea,
>( PLEASE DO PROPOSE SOMETHING ASAP )
>this what I am going to propose tomorrow.
>Howewer with the high proportion of diplomats here who never attended
>the WSIS, the prospects are dim for a MAG.
>
>At the pace the negotiations are going, I don't see how the
>negotations could end up tomorrow on Tuesday.
>I must leave tomorrow night Geneva.
>
>All the Best
>
>Francis
>
>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------
> Francis F. Muguet Ph.D
> MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher
> http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net
>
> Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS)
> http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
> E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr
> 75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE
> (33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82
>
> WSIS World Summit on the Information Society
> Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org
> Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org
>
> Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org
>
> WTIS World Tour of the Information Society
> http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org
>-----------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------
More information about the Plenary
mailing list