[WSIS CS-Plenary] APC statement to CSTD Opening Session

[karen banks]

hi folks

A copy of the statement anriette made to the CSTD opening session 
this morning..

karen

The Association for Progressive Communication's input at the opening 
of the Tenth Session of the Commission for Science and Technology for 
Development

21 May 2007
Presented by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director

The Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) has 
an important role in system-wide follow-up to the World Summit on the 
Information Society (WSIS). We support the concept of a multi-year 
programme that is implemented with the inclusion of multiple-stakeholders.

Coordination of WSIS follow which includes an enormous range of 
social and economic issues is not a trivial task and we want to urge 
the CSTD to consider the following suggestions:

On stakeholder participation:

We realise we are stating the obvious, but we want to remind those 
gathered here that meaningful inclusion of voices of the people most 
impacted by the digital divide requires more than multi-stakeholder 
panels in Geneva or New York. ECOSOC's Resolution 2006/46 provides a 
basis for the development of a multi-stakeholder approach to WSIS 
follow-up. But, to build on this effectively, the CSTD needs to:

- establish mechanisms for the inclusion of the perspectives of 
business and civil society in determining its programme of work, its 
deliberations and in the drafting of the recommendations that it 
submits to ECOSOC;

- undertake efforts to ensure that multi-stakeholder participation is 
integrated in WSIS follow up and implementation at the level of 
coordination of action lines, at the level of regional UN commissions 
and implementing of regional action plans, and at national level.

How can this be done?

APC proposes that at the very least a multi-stakeholder advisory 
group is established to assist the CSTD chair and secretariat in 
designing its work programme, CSTD, and to help prepare for the 
annual and inter-sessional meetings on information society issues. 
The CSTD already benefits from inputs from thematic boards such as 
the Gender Advisory Board. The multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) 
that assisted the Internet Governance Forum secretariat in preparing 
for its first meeting in Athens in 2006 also serves as a useful precedent.

Other useful means of enhancing participation are devices such as 
online consultations (such as the one convened by the GAID in 
preparation for this week's meetings), round tables, the IGF's use of 
online tools to facilitate remote participation in face to face 
meetings, or one day thematic forums such as those being proposed by BASIS.

We also want to emphasise that civil society and business are 
diverse, and this diversity needs to be considered by mechanisms for 
participation.

On the CSTD's programme of work:

APC supports the 5 proposed thematic areas to frame the CSTS's 
programme of work. APC submits the following comments for consideration:

Prioritisation: The WSIS covered a very wide range of issues relevant 
to building a people-centred information society. APC is concerned 
that if a long list of activities, issues, and recommendations are 
presented to ECOSOC it is less likely that governments will pick up on them.

APC proposes that in addition the CSTD undertakes to work with UN 
agencies and other stakeholders involved in WSIS implementation to 
identify three to five priority areas.

Measuring progress: We propose that the CSTD agrees on a few simple 
indicators that can be used to measure progress in addressing the 
priorities areas it identifies. For APC, physical infrastructure is 
one such key priority.

On obstacles to implementation: Understanding obstacles to 
implementation of WSIS goals is essential if these obstacles are to 
be overcome. As the CSTD has an overarching role it is best placed to 
do this, and to alert ECOSOC to these obstacles. Identifying these 
obstacles, and developing ways of overcoming them, should be done 
collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders. The CSTD can also 
recommend related agenda items to bodies such as the IGF, GAID, and 
the UN implementing agencies.

On reporting submitted to the CSTD by institutions tasked with 
follow-up and implementation: It would be useful for at least one 
section of each of those reports to follow a common reporting format. 
This can be used to make it easier to monitor implementation and 
lessons learned on specific issues, e.g. application of the WSIS 
principles on stakeholder participation.

National implementation: We believe that mechanisms for measuring 
national implementation need to be strengthened. What are countries 
doing? How do national entities interact with action line 
implementation? Is there a national overview reporting frame work and 
cycle? We recommend that such a reporting framework be developed and 
that governments are asked to submit reports every year. These 
reports can become focal points for stakeholder participation. 
Business and civil society entities can participate in compilation of 
national reports, and present comment and critique on governments' 
assessment of progress.

In closing our input we quote from an APC and IteM (Third World 
Institute) publication, Global Information Society Watch report, to 
be launched here tomorrow:

"Different degrees of access to technology and connectivity mirror 
the social and economic divides within and between countries. 
Increase in access to ICTs will not, by itself, reduce poverty or 
secure freedoms on a sustainable basis. But there is a real danger 
that lack of access to ICTs, and to the spaces where decisions are 
made about information and communications infrastructure, content and 
services, can deepen existing social exclusion, and create new forms 
of exclusion."

There is no time to waste. It is a characteristic of the digital 
divide that it increases at a rate that is similar to the rapid rate 
of change in ICTs themselves.