[WSIS CS-Plenary] Complimentary report on GFC meeting 6 September

Sat Sep 10 15:20:41 BST 2005

Report from the open GFC meeting 6 September

This summary is only meant as a complement to the report, already sent out
by Chantal Peyer. We have tried to recapitulate the main points made by the
different stakeholder groups during the meeting.

Interventions on evaluation and benchmarking

UNTCAD, thereafter supported by UNESCO and the World Bank made two
proposals, as highlighted by the compilation of comments: 1) In para 11b
“Digital opportunity index” to be replaced by “the development of
internationally comparable indicators”. 2) A new para 30-bis mentioning the
Global Partnership on Measuring ICT for Development. As later on clarified
by the World Bank, this initiative is related to the need to develop
realistic benchmarking based on comparable international indicators, in
order also to better assist developing countries in the setting up of such
indicators. UNESCO further highlighted that the reference to action lines
agreed in Geneva could be specified, and also proposed that its role should
be strengthened at the regional level. An appropriate inter-agency mechanism
for cooperation and coordination should be established under the UN CEB.
UNESCO lastly stated that the ITU/UNESCO proposal of 21 May was still on the
table.

Egypt and Canada supported the partnership developed by UNCTAD for
evaluation and benchmarking, around the establishment of international
comparable data. Egypt, then supported by the World Bank, further stressed
the need to take into account the recent development on that question,
including on the specific nature if ICT opportunities in developing
countries. 

Civil Society interventions

Jean-Louis Fullsack (CFDPTT) proposed a new para 10 underlining the need for
ITU to adapt its organisation for a better and more satisfactory involvement
of civil society in its activities.

Second, he proposed a stronger link between ICT and access energy in the
document, with a better coordination among all stakeholders including UNEP
and ITU. Finally, he suggested an annual multi-stakeholder evaluation
mechanism, coordinated by the ITU, at regional, sub-regional and national
levels to follow up on the Geneva objective that all villages in the
developing world should have access to ICT networks by 2015.

WSIS CS Youth Caucus and Chantal Peyer (CS Informal Coalition on Financing)
the expressed concern about the change of language in the whole document for
“implementation mechanism” to “follow-up process”.  The Caucus further
proposed to change the “coulds” to “shoulds” in Para. 14b. Thus, the caucus
proposed a re-drafting of § 11 to ensure action-oriented and time-bound
implementation and follow-up”. The caucus, later on supported by the CS
Coalition on Financing also proposed to re-convene WSIS stakeholders in 2010
and 2015. It also requested a strong reference to the sustainability of the
Digital Solidarity Fund and the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships in
closing the digital divide. Lastly it supported the establishment of a World
ICT (or ICT4D) Day. 

Chantal Peyer stated later on the need to reaffirm the targets established
by the Geneva PoA and to find further agreement on the mechanisms required
to follow-up and monitor the implementation of those targets. According to
this, the Informal Coalition recommended the establishment of
multi-stakeholder teams for each action line, with an identified
coordination body, to be reflected in §11. In addition, she supported the
constitution of a multi-stakeholder mechanism such as the Global Alliance.
Lastly the proposed IG Forum should be included in the WSIS implementation
process, as also stated by Bertrand de la Chapelle. 

Francis Muguet (ENSTA) expressed that civil society was surprised by the
changes that had been made in the proposal. He was concerned by the shift
towards the idea that now there should be no coordinating body. He proposed
that ITU could host the coordinating body, and supported as well the initial
proposal of multi-stakeholder implementation teams. Further, he questioned
whether WSIS could the social and economic field of ECOSOC mandate as
understood in UN GA Resolution 57/270. A legal framework for
multi-stakeholder partnership and coordinating body was needed.

Bertrand de la Chapelle (wsis-online.net) underlined that CS has no idea at
this stage of what governmental comments were during the previous day’s
closed GFC meeting. The organisation of open consultation is a very positive
mechanism, but CS must be more informed to ensure a more meaningful
interaction with the GFC. In addition, he emphasized the necessary
interaction in a multi-stakeholder follow-up framework. The proposed basis
contained in the GFC draft proposal should therefore be better achieved. He
made some additional comments on the language of the document (§ 10: “We
acknowledge affirm that multi-stakeholder participation”; § 12: We encourage
pledge governments to set up; have the possibility should support).).
Lastly, he raised the question of the many initiatives or funding which do
not come from international organisations, but from other stakeholders and
actors. They should be taken into account, so that more exchanges of
information should be promoted in the text of the GFC proposal. 

Francis Muguet (ENSTA) noticed that the WSIS would be the first UN Summit
organised after the release on the integration of UN Conferences follow-up.
Therefore, if the WSIS is an economic and social summit, the UN Resolution
57/270 should be applied, taking into account the innovative context of the
UN reform. 

Private Sector intervention

Ayesha Hassan (CCBI) first proposed that “outcome” replaces “process” in
para 11, to make the text more action-oriented. The importance of
multi-stakeholder partnership should not only be limited to the ITU
initiative Connect the World. She also made some comments regarding non
state actors speaking time repartition during the work of Sub-Committee B,
requesting more flexibility to guarantee a right of response to government
comments. She also asked whether observers could be allowed attend to the
work of drafting groups.

States interventions

In addition to the strong statement from Brazil, a few other delegations
also took the floor. UK, on behalf of the EU, stressed the priority of a
multi-stakeholder involvement to WSIS. Stating that this proposed text
should not at his stage be too prescriptive and too detailed, the UK
supported it as a GFC input, but asserted that further comments would come
from the EU at later stages of the process. 

Russia supported that a coordination body can be found before Tunis within
existing structures of UN, since WSIS should be considered as a
socio-economic UN summit.

Egypt stressed that a clear mention should be made to the role of ICTs for
development. Lastly, the view of all stakeholders should be considered in
the work of the UN system committees in charge of technological issues, in
order to better reflect on the role such committees could participate in the
WSIS process after Tunis. Cuba agreed that modalities included in § 14-e
could be one option for a UN inter-agency coordination mechanism, but other
options should also be considered by States before taking a decision.

Report by Philippe Dam and Jette Madsen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Renate Bloem
President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mil: rbloem at ngocongo.org
Website: www.ngocongo.org

The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association
that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and
decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the
presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United
Nations agencies on issues of global concern.  For more information see our
website at www.ngocongo.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050910/d78d4ca2/attachment.htm