[WSIS CS-Plenary] WSIS next phase is different...

[William Drake]

Hi Sean,

This is helpful.  I would just add a point with respect to structural issues that I also made yesterday on the governance list.  There is no guarantee that the UN will necessarily look exclusively or even first to the CS structure that's evolved for CS input on the working group and task force.  We already had a situation where ISOC did a press conference on Internet governance early at WSIS, so (as I understand it) the governance caucus was told there was no need for it to hold one covering the same ground.  Generalizing the point, now that things are getting interesting, CS or nominally CS organizations that have not participated in our structure may wish to weigh in on the working group and task force, and the UN in turn may wish to selectively reach out to organizations or individuals it considers to be luminaries to represent third sector views.  Which is to say that we will need to think not only about how we want to organize internally, but also how we want to position ourselves in relation to/liaison with other nonparticipating organizations, as well as the UN.

Best,

Bill Drake


  -----Original Message-----
  From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Sean O Siochru
  Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 3:59 PM
  To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
  Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] WSIS next phase is different...


  Hi everyone,

  I think we should start thinking about the difference between the run up to the Geneva Summit and the run up to the Tunis Summit.  They will be very different, for a number of reasons, and hence our approach must also be different. Although it is early days yet, a few differences might be as follows:

  1)  The issues will be narrower in the second Phase, and involve different fora. 

  Governments are surely not going to revisit the broad range of issues that were covered in WSIS I. Issues such as copyright, concentration of ownership, community media, open source etc. and all the rest will be left the way they are with regard to a Declaration.  We will no longer be working alongside/in parallel with governments, in an intergovernmental forum, on these issues.

  So the issues open for ongoing discussion seem likely to be Internet Governance and the Digital Solidarity Fund, and related matters.  In the first, the core of discussion and lobbying might be in, or directed at, the proposed working group on Internet Governance; in the second, the Task Force under the auspices of the Secretary General is the focus.  Thus our lobbying focus and actions are likely to narrower and different.

  Another possible area for our participation is around the Follow-up and Evaluation activities proposed in the action plan - which seem to have no explicit civil society participation, and certainly should have.  How can we ensure that people-centred criteria are selected?  The data gathered in a coherent manner etc.?  (Anyone know who is expected to lead this?  ITU?  UN ICT Task Force?)

  2)  The Structures of Civil Society in this second stage are likely to be different.  

  It could be a big mistake to try to 'institutionalise' the structures we have set up over the last two years.  One of the great values of them is that they have acted more as a 'network'  than as formal structures - they were dynamic, fluid, quick to respond, open and participative (and, yes, very messy at times).  This would change with a move to institutionalisation.  Our legitimacy up to now can be characterised as 'good-enough-legitimacy'  (sometimes, 'just-in-time legitimacy', narrowly averting collapse)  i.e. although there were numerous flaws of transparency and accountability in the bodies we created, almost all of us were willing to work within them because we knew we could make a fuss, and change them, if enough people felt strongly about it.  They were not set in stone.

  I am not suggesting how we should restructure within the WSIS process - perhaps the best approach will emerge only gradually, and we must be aware that there might be a very different attitude from a new Secretariat.  A further complicating factor is that there could be an influx of Tunisian 'civil society' actors, whose sole goal is to divert and disrupt criticism of Tunisia's human rights record - existing structures are hardly robust enough for that.

  But I am saying that it is likely that most of the civil society actors involved in the Plenary may wish to reorganise outside the WSIS process, in their chosen areas of work (indeed sometimes joining with the WE SEIZE and others external groups).  A couple of examples are given below.  

  2) Civil Society could focus on national Action Plan implementation

  Implementation of the Action Plan at national level, in the broad range of areas where action is called for, is very open at the moment.  Unlike for instance the Rio Summit, where implementation was built-in through e.g. UNDP's Agenda 21,  I cannot see any concrete mechanisms for government to move the Action Plan forward. I worked with a few governments just before the Summit on how they intend to implement, and they hadn't a clue!  So a key area for civil society could be at the national level, or even regional level, pursuing governments in terms of what they intend to do.  (The UNDP work that I was involved with did a trial of a civil-society driven multi-stakeholder approach to this, which seemed to work well.) An option for existing CS Working Groups could, for instance, be to coordinate approaches to governments on matters where positive commitments are in the Action Plan (few enough!), put pressure on them, and share ideas and results.   So the focus might shift to national and regional levels.

  3)  Civil Society could move the issues to new Fora

  Many of the issues that we dealt with but are now effectively closed in the WSIS could be taken elsewhere.  Issues such as copyright (WIPO, WTO), allocation of radio spectrum (ITU, governments), concentration of media ownership (government, WTO?), cultural diversity (UNESCO, WTO) and many more are fought out in other global fora.  At the same time, the main collective civil society organising fora are the World Social Forums, regional and thematic Social Forums, and other similar events.  Perhaps Working Groups might consider how they could continue their interactions and deliberations in these contexts.  Certainly, the CRIS Campaign, which has always located itself within broader civil society and not just in the WSIS, intends to do so, and will be seeking to join with others  (as soon as we get a chance to take our breath).

  It would be a shame to waste the impetus and the connections that were built up during this phase of the WSIS, and they may be frittered away if we just try to retain them within WSIS phase II.  

  These are just a few thoughts, maybe to open a debate when people get the time.

  Bye

  Sean.  


  ___________________________________________________
  Seán Ó Siochrú  Central office: tel:  +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473 0597 
  NEXUS Research  Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
  14 Eaton Brae   Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739 
  Shankill                        
  Co. Dublin              e-mail: sean at nexus.ie
  Ireland                 Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20031220/b2b7b665/attachment.html