[WSIS CS-Plenary] Revised GFC draft - strategic aspects

[Ralf Bendrath]

Thanks for the compliation, Bertrand - really helpful.

BTW: The latest drafts of the Political Chapeau and the Operation Part are 
now online as annexes to the report on the work of the GFC:
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1867|0>

I want to provide some comments on Parminder's comments, and an attempt to 
look at the big picture (especially on creating a new forum vs. the UNGA 
57/270 ECOSOC approach) below. I hope it is somehow understandable, I am 
already getting lost in all the dfferent draft versions...

Parminder wrote:

> So, instead of heeding opposition to the original changes proposed by 
> the chair, the draft document is only going from bad to worse.
I am not totally convinced of this, at least if we look at the 
international / UN level.

my formatting in ASCII below:
   <new language>
   <--deleted language-->

If you look at the new para 12:
"At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, we encourage
governments to set up a national implementation framework with <--full and
effective participation--> of civil society and business entities;

Roughly the same for new para 13c:
"We consider a multi-stakeholder approach and the <--full and effective-->
participation in regional WSIS implementation activities by civil society
and business entities to be essential."

This is bad, and we seriuosly have to fight this. We have to insist that

I support Bertrand's suggestions at the GFC meeting on 6 September
(from Renata's report: § 10: “We <--acknowledge--> >affirm> that 
multi-stakeholder participation”; § 12: We <--encourage-> <pledge> 
governments to set up; have the possibility should support...).

But we at the moment should ask to go back to the original language:
§10: “continuous and substantial involvement” instead of “participation”.

But then you also have:

new para 14c:
"The modalities of coordination of implementation activities among the UN
agencies should be defined by the UN Secretary General on the basis of
existing practices within the UN system <--[-->and within the WSIS<--]-->.
The experience of, and the activities undertaken by, UN agencies in the
WSIS process—notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP—should continue to be used to
their fullest extent."

The square brackets are gone now! They used to be around "and within
the WSIS" (referring to "based on existing practices within the UN System").

and new para 35 (though still in brackets):
"<Participation> <--Continuous involvement--> of all stakeholders in the
policy discussion after Tunis Summit is essential and the modalities of
such participation should be established."

At least, "participation" is better than "involvement", or am I getting 
this wrong? We should of course ask for "full and effective" to be added.

Then, you also have another reference to UNGA 57/270.

So: The way I see it after having a long discussion with Chantal last
night (and I know I am a natural born optimist):

It seems like Karklins is trying to react to demands from several
governments to have less mandatory inclusion of observers on the national
and regional level, whcih is where implementation has to take place. This 
really is bad for us, but looking at the opposition from Brazil, China and 
other towards the MSP and from the US on the follow-up at all, 
understandable from Karklin's perspective.
The problem is: Those fights have to made in the respective countries and 
regions anyway, we can't really decide this in Geneva and then think 
everything will be fine. (Of course, we still have to fight like hell that 
"full and effective" stays in.)

But in return, the follow-up on the policy level (which is different than 
implementation) will now be "on the basis of existing practices within the 
UN system and within the WSIS". This is better for us than the previous 
draft, where the WSIS reference was in brackets.

In addition, the references to UNGA 57/270 won't go out anymore, I am
pretty sure. So, what we could push for instead of a new forum is to
mainstream the existing MSP practices from the WSIS into ECOSOC etc. There
are a number of references in the report following 57/270 we can use for
that (the report is available in html at
<http://www.wsis-si.org/DOCS/updated-report-13may05-N0534415.pdf>).

 From Chapter VII:
"In recent years, the Economic and Social Council and its functional
commissions have significantly intensified the involvement of civil
society, including non-governmental organizations, foundations,
parliamentarians and local authorities, and the private sector. Perhaps
the most innovative and successful of the Council’s multi-stakeholder
initiatives is the Information and Communication Technology Task Force."

(Well, given the weak standing of the UN ICT TF, I know this is not much. 
But we can always refer to the really open discussions and the 
participation of CS representatives as real peers. I know in reality it 
was a bit different, but officially...).

In any case, under the current draft, the decision about the follow-up / 
implementation structure will be made by Kofi Annan. I saw his press 
conference in NYC a few days ago on TV, and he spoke quite nicely about 
the importance of involving civil society better and more effective in the 
UN system.

Looking at the big picture: ECOSOC is not the greatest place for us, but I
am not really convinced that it would be better to add new specialized
forums here and there to the standards UN framework. That was the whole
idea of 57/270, and somehow it makes sense to me: Why should we push for a
new playground that is disconnected from the core of the UN, when instead
we have a slight chance to use the WSIS experience for a more meaningful
(and strategically more relevant) opening up of the core UN framework? Of
course, for this you need much more patience and other allies. But if
anything in this direction can be placed in the Operational Part in the
end, it is a clear sign that we have some allies among the governments on
this. If not, we are lost in either case.

In a way, it is a great chance that the WSIS is the first summit do decide
about its follow-up according to the 57/270 report's recommendations. It
would be much worse if it had been a summit on security policy or the like.

So, given the fact that none among the governments is enthusiastic about
creating a new forum and dropping the 57/270 references, we should instead
insist on "full and effective and meaningful and whatever" participation 
of CS in the ECOSOC-guided follow-up.

I totally agree with Parminder on the tactical level:

> In the circumstances, if the early few days at prepcom 3 show us that
> the new implementation text is going to go through, there isn’t really
> much left for CS to associate with this process any further (except for
> IG issues) .
> 
> CS may want to take a decision at this stage on whether it wants to
> stay in or opt out of the negotiations around the implementation issue.
> The first task that faces the CS representatives who will attend
> prepcom 3 from Monday onwards is to develop a clear CS strategy on this
> issue.
> 
> Taking a hard stance at this point on this issue, and lobbying with
> some more sympathetic government delegations on it, may still be the
> only chance even if we are seeking a minimal outcome on some
> implementation mechanisms, and some real global policy spaces
> post-WSIS.

I may sound too moderate in what I wrote above, but those of you who 
remember that I facilitated the ad-hoc strategy working group in the first 
phase that led to exactly the decision for CS to drop out of the official 
drafting circus will know it is not the case. I am only trying to explore 
at the moment which avenues are worth exploring and which ones are just a 
waste of energy for us.

We also should discuss how to use our small threat (the "exit" option) in 
the most effective way. This option is normally most effective when you 
just threaten to use it. Once you exit, you don't have any impact anymore. 
But of course, we must have a clear understanding of what would be 
acceptable for us at all and where the line towards unacceptable is.

Best, Ralf