[WSIS CS-Plenary] GFC meeting today

Wed Sep 7 01:16:40 BST 2005

Marthe:

Messages posted to the plenary list are automatically translated -  
please visit :

  http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/

regards,

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>

On 7-Sep-05, at 12:26 AM, Marthe Dansokho wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Is it possible to have something in French you gays? So the  
> participation can be effective.
>
> Thanks
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Chantal Peyer
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 4:45 PM
> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] GFC meeting today
>
> Hello,
>
> Here is a short summary of the GFC meeting of this morning. And  
> also in the annex a statment made on behalf of the informal  
> coalition on financing.
> Things don't look good for follow-up and civil society will have to  
> be very active at prepcom3 if we want to save a minimum of  
> political debate after the Tunis Summit.
> Regards
> Chantal
>
> Group of the friends of the chair – meeting of
> 6th september 2005, 10 am – 12.30 am
> Summary
>
> 1. Introduction and explanations by Ambassador Karklins
> Ambassador Karklin explained the rationnal which is behind the new  
> draft of paras 10, 11 and 20 of the operationnal document.
>
> a. Definition of follow-up and implementation
> The term follow-up refers to the complete document and to all the  
> measures that will be taken after the second phase of WSIS (see new  
> §11). It is composed of three aspects:
> - implementation: concrete measures and actions
> - evaluation: establishement of precise and internationally agreed  
> statistics, reports and so on
> - policy debate: process to analyze achievements and results,  
> discussion on how policies should be reviewed
>
> Those three components of the follow-up process have to be achieved  
> on the three levels: national, regional and international. And  
> multi-stakeholder participation is important on the three levels.
>
> b. About implementation
> The concept for implementation on the international level has been  
> modified and this has motivated strong criticism by civil society  
> organisations. But ambassador Karklin stated that § 14b actually  
> “allows a much more flexible implementation of the action plan by  
> UN-Agencies” and believes that this implementation will create a  
> strong dynamism among UN-Agencies for new activities. He also  
> stated that  general coordination of the UN-Agencies has to rely  
> upon the decision of the UN secretary-general (§ 14e), because he  
> “knows the UN-house” and will be able to see clearly what measure  
> need to be taken to coordinate this house. “Duplication has to be  
> avoided”, Ambassador Karklins continued, to justify why a general  
> coordination body is not necessary.
>
> c. About evaluation and policy debate
> Evaluation and policy debate should be done in the framework of the  
> usual UN-follow-up processes, according to UNGA resolution 57/270.  
> According to ambassador Karklins, civil society and other  
> organisations should not fear that the topic of the information  
> society disappears from the international agenda after Tunis,  
> because of the link between the MDG’s Summit and the WSIS Summit 
> [1]. The mention of WSIS in the MDG’s documents means, for Karklin,  
> that the topic of ICTs for development will remain on the agenda at  
> least until 2015.
>
> §34 Mentions the necessity to continue a multi-stakeholder policy  
> discussion after Tunis. This sentence means that another forum than  
> the UN general Assembly is needed, so that non-governemental actors  
> can participate in this policy debate. The global alliance could be  
> this forum, but it is only one possibility among others, as the  
> global alliance does not find much support for the moment..
>
> 2. Next steps of the process
> For the next steps of the process, there are two scenarios:
> a. Scenario 1:
> The new draft version of the GFC is accepted at the beginning of  
> the prepcom3, by all governements.
> Then the process is:
> - tuesday 20th september, in the sub-committee, first lecture of  
> the draft with all the governements. Inputs and comments. This sub- 
> committee will be open to all stakeholders (if I did understand  
> right).
> - wednesday – thursday: a small drafting group will integrate the  
> comments of the 20th september session. This will replace all  
> former versions.
> - End of first week or beginning of second: sub-committee reading  
> and work on the new version.
>
> b. Scenario 2:
> The new draft version of the GFC is refused at the beginning of the  
> prepcom3 and works starts again on the prepcom2 version.
>
> 3. Impressions....
> a. General impression
> The meeting was supposed to last 3 hours, but it was finished after  
> less than 2 and a half hours. Generally speeking not many  
> governement representatives attended. But what was more striking is  
> that the governements who do oppose strong follow-up mechanisms did  
> not take the floor and did not express their opinion. The  
> governements which took the floor were: Brazil, Russia, Egypt,  
> canada, Cuba, England (on behalf of the EU).
>
> b. Issues which came out of the discussion
> The question of an international coordination mechanism clearly  
> appears like the question on which there is no consensus among  
> governements.
>
> - Brazil expressed a very strong statement saying that they do  
> understand that Ambassador Karklins is trying to find a minimum  
> consensus, but that their aim at prepcom3 is to go “further” than  
> this minimum consensus. Brazil thinks that in §14 (on international  
> implementation), one element is still missing: a general  
> coordination. “If the governements continue to do what they have  
> always done, then what was the point of WSIS? What are the results  
> of three years of hard work?”, the delegate asked. The brazilian  
> delegation has no fixed opinion yet on what should be the mechanism  
> to coordinate the work of UN-Agencies, but it believes that such a  
> mechanisms is needed and that clear “guidance” has to be given to  
> the general secretary of the UN.
>
> - on the opposite side, there is the position of the american  
> delegation, apparently supported by Japan and some other  
> governements, which clearly opposes any international coordination  
> mechanism and want §33 and 34 to be removed. Certain go as far as  
> saying that they oppose any mention of follow-up.
>
> Ambassador Karklins on his side is very worried that the  
> governements might refuse the new draft at the beginning of  
> prepcom3 and tried to convince he audience of the impact/potential  
> of the new proposal
> - he tried to convince Brazil and civil society that the new  
> version will allow more flexible initiatives by the UN-agencies and  
> that no decision has to be taken at WSIS for a general coordination  
> mechanism.
> - in an undirect way, he gave the message that the new draft was a  
> minumum, but realistic consensus, given the different position of  
> the governements
> - he was trying to show that in the general new framework proposed  
> the following points could be worked on: § 14c: “coordination of  
> multi-stakeholder initiatives” and §34 “continuous involvement of  
> all stakholders”: could be formulated in a more precise manner.
>
> 4. Civil society inputs
> - input from the youth caucus (Philipp Damm)
> - CSDPTT (Jean-Louis Fullsack)
> - Informal coalition on financing (Chantal Peyer)
> - Francis Muguet
> - Bertrand de la Chapelle
>
> Most of the statements will be send to the plenary list.
>
>
>
> [1]Section 38 of the outcome document of the MDG Summit (or High- 
> Level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly)  
> states, in the 5th august version, that governements will “build a  
> people-centred and inclusive information society so as to bridge  
> the digital divide and put the potential of ICTs at the service of  
> development and address new challenges of information society by  
> implementing the outcomes of the Geneva phase of the World Summit  
> on the Information Society (WSIS) and by ensuring the success of  
> the second phase of the WSIS to be held in Tunis in November  
> 2005.” , see http://www.un.org/ga/59/hl60_plenarymeeting.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -------------
> Pain pour le prochain - Bread for all
> Secrétariat romand
> Av. du Grammont 9 - 1007 Lausanne
> Tél. : 021 / 614 77 17
> Fax : 021 / 6 175 175
> www.ppp.ch
>
> Pain pour le Prochain est le service des Eglises protestantes de  
> Suisse pour le  développement.
>
> Bread for all is the Swiss Protestant Churches development  
> organization.
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/80 - Release Date:  
> 8/23/2005
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050907/47094ee4/attachment.html