[WSIS CS-Plenary] Summary of UN ICT Task Force Policy and Governance WG Meeting, 14 April 2005, Dublin

[Ezendu Ariwa]

Dear Ralf

Kindly resend as no attachment recieved

Ezendu



Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> For your information - the summary of the Dublin meeting on governance. 
> Mainly dealing with ICT Task Force follow-up (Global Alliance) and 
> Internet Governance.
> 
> Best, Ralf
> 
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Betreff: [ictpolicy]     Summary of ICT Policy and Governance Working 
> Group Meeting, 14    April 2005, Dublin
> Datum: Fri, 27 May 2005 15:31:17 -0400
> Von: Serge Kapto <kapto at un.org>
> Antwort an: ICT Policy and Governance Working Group 
> <ictpolicy at unicttaskforce.org>
> An: ictpolicy at unicttaskforce.org
> 
> 
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> Please see attached a summary of the working group meeting convened during
> the Eighth Meeting of the Task Force last april.
> 
> Comments are welcome.
> 
> Best regards,
> Serge
> 
> ---------------------
> (Text converted from MS Word Document - Ralf)
> 
> Agenda Working Group 1, UN ICT Task Force Meeting, Dublin, April 14
> 
> 1.    Welcome by Working Group 1 convener, the Association for 
> Progressive Communications (Anriette Esterhuysen)
> 2.    Recap of WG1 meeting in Berlin, Nov 2004
> 3.    Update on research into developing country impact and 
> participation in the WSIS (David Souter/Karen Banks for APC)
> 4.    Reports on WG1 member activities
> 5.    The Global Alliance: should it be established, and if yes, how, by 
> whom, for how long, and for what purpose?
> 
> Notes
> 
> 3. Update on research into developing country impact and participation 
> in the WSIS (David Souter/Karen Banks for APC)
> 
> David Souter updated the WG members on the research APC is conducting on 
> developing country participation in the WSIS process.
> 
> The objective of the discussion was to inform members of the research, 
> partly funded by the UNICT Task Force, and get feedback on perspectives 
> and issues that should be included in the ongoing work.  Research, in 
> the form of face-to-face interviews and responses to written 
> questionnaires, began in Accra, Feb 2005, during the African WSIS 
> regional meeting.
> 
> WG1 members responded with very valuable points including focusing on 
> issues such as:
> 
> -    Group of Friends of the chair: what is the impact/influence of the 
> countries  - Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Senegal, Ghana - that participate 
> in this working group (and for that matter, those participating in the 
> two taskforces on financing mechanisms and internet governance)
> -    Coalition building: what has been the relative effectiveness of the 
> different regional groupings and their impact on the process. The 
> experiences of Africa and the GRULAC (Group of Latin American and 
> Caribbean countries) have been very different in the process
> -    Impact of decisions:  what is the impact of decisions which will 
> emerge from WSIS on developing countries
> -    Digital Solidarity Fund:  have discussions about the DSF detracted 
> from other aspects of the broader financing mechanisms discourse and 
> negotiation.
> -    Role of Secretariat:  it was pointed out that the role of the WSIS 
> secretariat should be covered by the research as this often has major, 
> but hidden impacts
> 
> 4. Reports on WG1 member activities in relation to Internet Governance
> 
> UNECA: has run a series of workshops on Internet Governance and 
> multi-stakeholder partnerships and will host a workshop on Internet 
> Governance and capacity building in Addis in July 2005
> 
> German government: in partnership with Siemens, hosting 5 sub-regional 
> level internet governance capacity building workshops. This was in 
> direct response to South Africa’s request for support for developing 
> country capacity building to engage in IG debates. The workshops are 
> targeted at governments.
> 
> Cairo (held); Cape Town (May 18th); WSIS LAC meeting, Rio (June 7th); 
> South East Asia  (possibly Hanoi) dates tbc; and Eastern Europe (dates tbc)
> 
> WGIG: A brief report on the WGIG’s process was given by Karen Banks
> 
> Prof. Klaus W. Grewlich, Ambassador, German Federal Foreign Office, 
> Member of the Panel of Advisors to the UN ICT Task Force) noted that 
> WGIG hasn't dealt with governance tools, treaties, conventions, hybrids 
> etc and would need to define the right mix and match of these tools
> http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?id=1492
> 
> John Mathieson of the Internet Governance Project 
> (www.internetgovernance.org) shared information about their proposals 
> for ICANN reform: What to do About ICANN: A Proposal for Structural 
> Reform - http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/IGP-ICANNReform.pdf and that 
> the IGP is interested in internet governance capacity building in the 
> longer term.
> 
> Note – since this report, the IGP has created an archive of all 
> proposals in the public domain dealing with internet governance.
> 
> Ayesha Hassan of the ICC shared details of resources focusing on the 
> policy and practice work in helping governments in applying laws/putting 
> them into place.
> 
> ICC Commission on E-Business, IT and Telecoms:
> 
> Toolkits for policymakers, businesses and other stakeholders on a range 
> of issues [security, security for SMEs, privacy, telecoms 
> liberalization, government IT procurement]
> http://www.iccwbo.org/home/menu_electronic_business.asp#tools
> 
> Recent policy statements [VoIP, IPv6 and more]
> http://www.iccwbo.org/home/menu_electronic_business.asp#policystatement
> 
> Policy statements from before 2003:
> http://www.iccwbo.org/home/e_business/menu_electronic_business_before2004.htm#policystatementbefore 
> 
> 
> Nii Quaynor from Afrinic/Afnog suggested that Afrinic could collaborate 
> with other IG capacity building initiatives (http://www.afrinic.net/)
> 
> UNECE will host a ministerial meeting in South East Europe, June 30/july 
> 1 with UNDP and stability pact (EU funded). Intended to be a preparatory 
> meeting for WSIS, but member states would like to focus also on 
> broadband policy.
> 
> 5. The Global Alliance: should it be established, and if yes, how, by 
> whom, for how long, and for what purpose?
> 
> Participants broke out into small ‘buzz’ groups, no more than 3-4 
> people, and were asked to respond to the following questions. A summary 
> of the session was shared with the closed session of the UNICT TF and 
> all WG1 members felt this was a very worthwhile exercise. The questions 
> the groups addressed were:
> 
> 1)    What was valuable about the UN ICT Task Force?
> 2)    With hindsight, what could have been done better?
> 3)    Should there be a Global Alliance for ICT and Development?
> 4)    What should such a Global Alliance do?
> 5)    How should it work?
> 
> A synthesis of the responses is below:
> 
> 1)    What was valuable about the UN ICT Task Force?
> 
> “Level playing field”: Brought various stakeholders (governments, 
> private, civil society, IGOs) on a reasonably equal footing, at least in 
> the Open Fora (more than in the TF itself probably)
> 
> Perspectives and expertise: space for new vision and perspectives, and 
> benefited from the special expertise of various members in areas such as 
> ODA, education, etc.. Provided opportunity to address, for example, the 
> linkages between financing/MDGs and ICTs
> 
> Open debate: An open forum allowing people to disagree with one another. 
> In the case of the 5th TF meeting, the Open Fora ended up “driving” the 
> Task Force, rather than vice versa, which was good.
> 
> Spin-offs: Catalyzed thematic networks such as GESCI, with own support 
> mechanisms, and active convenors;
> 
> Networking: Creation of regional human networks/nodes. It brought 
> together UN regional commissions and other agencies, in a way that 
> produced more intense cooperation than other processes to date. This has 
> been a very valuable contribution as interagency collaboration in the UN 
> is difficult to achieve and maintain.
> 
> 2)    With Hindsight, what could have been done better ?
> 
> Clearer more transparent processes: Identify, scope of operations and 
> constitution could have been clearer and it’s development more 
> transparent, It was not always clear on what basis members were invited 
> to join the TF, in what capacity, and whether self-selected or not. The 
> formation process could heave been more interactive and inclusive for 
> civil society and private sector actors (a more bottom-up selection 
> process instead of picking-up of personalities)’
> 
> Better preparation: Meetings could have benefited from more structured 
> preparation of agenda, background paper development and member 
> preparation for the events
> 
> Role and diversification of private sector membership: the UNICT TF has 
> attracted companies that have prioritised ICTD as part of their model, 
> but we need more than participation in discussions and showcasing of 
> activities. Several have demonstrated a real commitment, reflected in 
> how they are doing business. We would hope in future to have more medium 
> sized, developing country participation. The lack of a strong ICD 
> framework initially may have prevented more developing country 
> participation
> 
> More facilitation of collaborative projects: GESCI is a great example, 
> but there should have been many more
> 
> More assessment of member benefits: how have members benefited from 
> participation in the alliance. Need to assess whether the TF has 
> responded to specific needs, relevant in terms of cost efficiency
> 
> 3)    Should there be a Global Alliance for ICT and Development ?
> 
> All responded ‘Yes’, there is a need at least for a multi-stakeholder 
> policy forum, and most actors do not want the past efforts to be wasted. 
> However, there were various conditions or concerns, which qualified the 
> general positive reaction:
> 
> Yes:
> -    as long as there's no ‘mission creep’ and bureaucratisation for 
> it’s own sake
> -    if there is reasonable parity, truly equal committed partners, and 
> more diverse membership
> -    provided it has clear objectives and a solid development framework
> -    with the political support of the UN
> 
> 4)    What should such a Global alliance do ?
> 
> No direct operational role; rather an open, facilitating framework for 
> discussion. Its multi-stakeholder nature will give it legitimacy. Its 
> role is to help actors establish clear common pictures, goals and 
> methods on a given subject.
> 
> Main focus could be : ICT for Development (i.e. : leveraging ICTs tools 
> in existing policies AND reforming the way aid is allocated and 
> monitored). The Alliance could also expand to : the Development of the 
> Information Society (general policy issues)
> 
> The number of policy issues to address will only expand. They will be 
> handled in numerous parallel fora, including various international 
> organizations. The Global Alliance could play a key preparatory role for 
> such discussions in the following dimensions :
> 
> •    Agenda-setting : Help actors collectively identify issues of 
> interest or concern
> •    Convening : gathering all concerned stakeholders around each theme
> •    Catalyzing : facilitate the formation of thematic networks and 
> clusters
> •    Improving Coherence : help agencies and other actors distribute 
> responsibilities among themselves on overlapping issues
> •    Capacity Building : raising awareness and training, particularly in 
> developing countries, both for governments and other actors
> •    Produce Concrete Recommendations : suggest initiatives or specific 
> actions
> 
> The Global Alliance could also provide a framework to address competency 
> disputes between competing bodies on a given theme.
> 
> 5)    How should it work ?
> 
> -    effective interaction and cooperation with the private sector/civil 
> society and academics
> -    truly universal, inclusive, and multi-stakeholder
> -    have a close working relationship with whoever will govern the 
> implementation of the WSIS Declaration and Plan of Action
> -    no end date but should undergo regular review and evaluation of 
> work with the possibility to decide whether work should continue
> -    it would need a secretariat
> 
> Process of constitution
> 
> -    can't be hand picked
> -    needs to be some nomination process
> -    constituencies should be consulted
> -    criteria for nomination/selection should be transparent
> -    need to be able to work with the wider constituencies in an ongoing 
> basis
> -    forums are a good way for non-members to participate
> 
> END
> 
> Appendix
> 
> Specific comments from Bertrand de la Chappelle:
> 
> Online-Offline : The architecture should use a combination of offline 
> meetings and online tools (synchronous and asynchronous).
> 
> Self-sustained thematic networks : like Gesci, they should find their 
> own financial and human resources and become self-supported. Governments 
> or other actors could volunteer to host, support or lead. Governance of 
> each network should be multi-stakeholder (three co-coordinators for 
> instance?).
> 
> Structuration in Clusters : Thematic networks could be grouped into 
> larger clusters (for instance a Health cluster might contain several 
> initiatives or networks). A group of Cluster convenors could be 
> established to facilitate ongoing work.
> 
> Thematic meetings : several thematic meeting (by clusters for instance) 
> could be organized during the course of the year at the discretion of 
> the respective Thematic Cluster convenors.
> 
> Annual meeting : One annual meeting would gather a fixed number of 
> actors (e.g. 200, 300 …). These would be jointly designated by the 
> different thematic networks with the objective of forming a balanced 
> representation of the viewpoints of the various gender, regions, ages, 
> constituencies and themes. Designation would take the form of a special 
> participatory process based on the aggregation of lists of candidates 
> provided by the different networks and a second pass to select the ones 
> preferred by the most actors. This annual meeting would be the 
> opportunity to review progress in the different clusters and programs, 
> determine orientations and new agendas, as well as for networking among 
> participants.
> 
> Steering Group : A limited Steering Group / Commission would be 
> designated to ensure continuity and articulation of work between the 
> different networks and sub-themes. It would be composed of about 12-15 
> independent people designated in a similar way as above for a limited 
> period (one or two years). The first Steering Group / Commission could 
> be composed in a manner similar to WGIG.
> 
> Distributed Team : A full-time facilitation Team (small secretariat) 
> needs to be set up, if possible in a geographically distributed form. 
> But this Team needs some sort of connection with the UN and/or its 
> Secretary General.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>