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

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Thanks to Philippe and Jette for having completed the statements and proposals of the open 7th GFC meeting. I'd just mention that the NGO I use to represent in the WSIS process is CSDPTT (www.csdptt.org) and not CFDPTT. Thanks for taking notice of this (small) mistake.
Furthermore I'd add that the final paragraph of my third proposal entitled "One access to the ICT network in each village in DCs", stipulates that by 2010 at least 500 000 are to be connected, out of the total estimated 800 000 villages in DCs .  This is a "soft" wording for CSDPTT's steady statement since the very beginning of the WSIS process, namely "One access to the telecom network for each village in DCs by 2005".  
Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT





> Message du 10/09/05 16:29
> De : "Renata Bloem" 
> A : "CS Plenary" , "bureau wsis" 
> Copie à : wsis at ngocongo.org, "Renate Bloem" 
> Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Complimentary report on GFC meeting 6 September
> 
> 
 
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/20050910/1463fb82/attachment.html