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

[Dr. Francis MUGUET]

Dear Chantal,  Ralf , Parminder, Bertrand and others

I did not intervene much in thie current discussion,
simply because I am currently overworked.
My analysis is different , but complementary. :

>> 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.
>
I had quite a lot of discussions  with diplomats and officials at the 
last GFC.
My hypothesis is  that the ITU is not very  pleased by the fact it has 
been rejected
to be the "coordinating body".  One must add the fact that Utsumi is 
japanese and has put
his personnal weight on May 2 while his proposal has been rejected, 
therefore he has lost his face.
No official said to me that my hypothesis was incorrect, nor they would 
confirm it of course.
As some official told me informally and jokingly, it is the "nuclear 
option" of ITU.

It is not a secret in Geneva, that UN agencies are "competiting" 
with/against one another to get
their share and comtrol of the implementation process.

Therefore, if we want to have to have this coordinating body back on 
track, we must
offer ITU a way out.
In fact, we may suggest the ITU to have the same role
in regards to the follow up coordinating body as it is playing now in 
regards to the
current WSIS ie :  leading managerial role = executive secretariat
The follow up coordinating body should be conceived as a continuation of 
the process ( Assembly +  observers )
, therefore naturally a multi-stakeholder body.

Furthemore, I am planning to underline to the delegations that seem to 
support the new language
of the GFC that without a good coordination we are going to witness a 
waste of ressources.
"business and waste as usual at the UN".
It seems  that the delegations that are against a strong coordination 
adopted this position
 because they are afraid this coordinating body is going to lead to a 
new UN inefficient and costly
bureaucracy. 
We must sell that coordination = savings for all.
Furthemore, since the coordination should be truely multi-stakeholder, 
the coordinating body should
not be yet another bureaucracy of the UN specialized agencies,  but 
should include state representatives
that would be vigilant to keep its operating expenses at their minimum.

This is the message  that I sent the very night of the GFC  to the few 
diplomats
that intervened at the GFC  as a summary and
complement to my statement at the GFC.


=======================================
It has been my very tentative impression
that the disastrous disappearance of
a coordinating body in the new paragraphs 10 - 14
 has been caused in part
by the fact that ITU has not been
retained as the coordinating body despite
its meeting :
Informal consultations on WSIS implementation mechanism ( ITU Council 
Working Group on WSIS 2 May 2005 )
when ITU discussed of possible implementation mechanisms if
the ITU "were" the coordinating body.

Therefore, I proposed in my oral intervention,
 at the GFC7 on  Tuesday, 6 September,
that the ITU should retain an eminent role
in the spirit of
UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 - 90th plenary meeting, 21 
December 2001.

At the time of my intervention at the GFC7, I did not have the exact 
language of the UN resolution,
therefore my proposal was not enough refined.

In the resolution we find the following language :

---------
The General Assembly,
Recognizing the urgent need to harness the potential of knowledge and 
technology for promoting the goals of the United Nations Millennium 
Declaration :

.../...

Invites the International Telecommunication Union to assume the leading 
managerial role in the executive secretariat of the Summit and its 
preparatory process;

---------

Therefore, it is proposed that the coordinating body of the
follow-up ( and implementation ) should be a multi-stakeholder
body whose composition should be defined by the WSIS, while
not leaving this task to UN secretary-general as a sign of
abondon before difficulties (new paragraph 14 e) )
This coordinating body should be conceived as the continuation
of the multi-stakeholder WSIS preparatory process ( while
no renegociation of substantive issues would take place of course ).

In the same time, and in line with the
UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183,
the ITU should be invited to assume the *leading managerial role* in the
executive secretariat of the coordinating body and the follow-up
process of the WSIS.

This role was alluded to, in the WSIS-SI / WSIS-PCT group comments
that are included  in 12 August compilation,
but our language admittedly was not
adequate enough.

Therefore, I propose again our improved language
, this time for paragraph 14

-----------
 An overall coordination body shall be formed with three representatives 
(government, accredited private sector, accredited civil society) for 
each action line Multi-Stakeholder Working Group as defined in paragraph 
1x.
The heads of all UN specialized agencies are ex-officio members of the 
overall coordination body. We request the UN Secretary General to 
nominate a chair of the overall coordination body. Each action line 
Multi-Stakeholder Working Group should periodically prepare a report on 
the implementation of the Geneva and Tunis Plans of Action based upon 
the information provided by, and the outputs from collaboration among, 
stakeholders, focusing particular attention on the progress towards 
achievement of the internationally agreed development goals of the 
Millennium Declaration, and submit it to the overall coordination body 
that shall review it and comment it. The overall coordination body shall 
submit regular reports to the UN General Assembly, following its 
existing rules of procedure.
The ITU assumes the leading managerial role in the executive secretariat 
of the coordinating body and the follow-up
process of the WSIS.
------------

This implies that the idea of having Multi-Stakeholder teams for each 
action line should also be retained.

==========================

Please understand that I made my statement to the GFC, only after being 
sure,
while having a few informal talks with officials and diplomats just before
the beginning ot the session, that my  working hypothesis was  not 
incorrect.

Since there are quite a few action lines, the overall coordination body 
should be quite
large and inclusive too.

Best regards

Francis

 



-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
Associate Publisher
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

ENSTA   Paris, France
KNIS lab.  Director 
"Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS)
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web

UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org
------------------------------------------------------