[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Draft Statement for Sub-Committee B (for Tuesday afternoon)

[Ralf Bendrath]

Thanks for the draft, Bertrand!

Some proposed changes (in green) and comments (in courier font) from my 
side below.
In will also come to the 12:00 meeting of the Subcommittee-B Working Group.

Ralf

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

In November, the Summit itself will be over. Geneva produced valuable 
Principles and a comprehensive Agenda for Action. Tunis must now produce 
a follow-up framework for getting things done. This framework must be 
both efficient and flexible.

Comment:  This is not enough. "Efficient and flexible" sounds way too 
neoliberal to me. We should at least mention "inclusive" as a major 
principle. Don't have draft language for that yet, but you get my point.


It is not efficient enough to merely encourage actors to keep doing what 
they have always done. The present GFC draft is much too weak. We all 
need stronger commitments from governments and more enabling  mechanisms.

 

Flexibility is the second criterion : nobody wants a heavy architecture, 
cast in concrete for eternity, but rather an enabling framework. Some of 
the proposals discussed at PreCom2 could generate a rigid, hierarchical 
and top-down  mechanism that could stifle initiatives and establish 
control under the guise of coordination.


I suggest "some of the proposals", because some of them are still 
preferred by CS, if I read the recent discussion on plenary correctly.


In this first meeting of Sub Committee B, /and before a decision is made 
on which document or model discussions will be based upon,/ we want to 
outline some key components that any framework must contain to be 
efficient and flexible.

 

The following key benchmarks will guide our drafting amendments in the 
coming days. They will also be the basis on which we will judge the 
Operational Part of the Tunis Documents.
I think it can make sense to already slightly threaten that we can 
publicly disagree with this by next week if it turns out to be a 
watered-down and top-down approach in the end.

 

1)     Any framework must reaffirm the *key principles* of the Geneva 
Declaration and Plan of Action, including :

a.      Sustainable development and global solidarity

b.     The respect of human rights and particularly freedom of 
expression and privacy

This may sound like my pet project, but Privacy is getting ever more 
important (and endangered) in the Info-Society and has been mostly 
forgotten by the governments in the first phase.

c.      Women’s empowerment and gender equality

d.     Non-discrimination

e.   Cultural diversity

f.   ...


Hmh. Just looked at the Geneva declaration again, as well as our CS 
Geneva declaration. There is even much more nice "agreed language" then 
we mention here. How to deal with this? If we leave out important 
principles, it may sound like we want to prioritize here. We should 
discuss this in depth at 12:00.

2)     Any framework should be based on *a multi-stakeholder approach*, 
and we strongly oppose the deletion of the terms “full and effective” to 
qualify CS participation in the most recent GFC draft;

3)     Any framework should address the *national, regional and 
international levels* but also articulate them in all three dimensions: 
Policy debate, implementation, and evaluation;

4)     *Regular Review Meetings* must be held to allow all actors to 
review progress in an open and multi-stakeholder format. This means more 
frequent and concise meetings than usual +5 and +10 Summits. It also 
means more than the insertion of a few paragraphs in an annual report by 
the Secretary General to Ecosoc or the UN GA(.) Frequency and convenors 
of such Thematic, Regional and Global review meetings should be 
discussed with civil society [ies representatives];

5)     Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues in 
larger *Thematic Clusters*, taking into account the Geneva Action 
Lines tangibly;

*6)     *Any framework should encourage the formation of *Thematic 
Multi-stakeholder Initiatives*, ideally with a minimum of* *common 
criteria for their formation and  functioning;**

7)     All *international organizations*, according to their mandate or 
geographical competence, should integrate with their own activities the 
outcomes of the WSIS and actively support and facilitate the Thematic 
Multi-stakeholder Initiatives that emerge;

8)     Governments should individually “pledge” to establish, at the 
national level, “*multi-stakeholder implementation frameworks*” to 
define e-strategies, facilitate concrete initiatives and provide open 
and inclusive policy fora for debate;

9)     A *Global Policy Debate* is needed. Paragraph 35 of the GFC 
document should not only be maintained but made even more precise. The 
possible articulation with the forum function envisaged in Internet 
Governance should be clarified.


We should discuss this with the Subcommittee A / Internet Governance 
Caucus. This is a cross-cutting issue.

10) Finally*,* *Resolution 57/270 B* and the report of the General 
Assembly Working Group following it in no way prevents the WSIS to 
establish a specific and more efficient follow-up mechanism, as the 2003 
report to the General Assembly on Resolution 57/270 has clearly established.

 

We will come back with details of each of these points in the coming 
days. We sincerely thank the Chair for establishing this flexible and 
efficient mechanism for interaction in this Sub-Committee.

 

Another idea (for later this week?) is to suggest using ICTs for more 
inclusive policy debates and collaboration on implementation and 
evaluation. Especially the recent trend towards social software is 
really promising here. But this just as a "to do" / "to discuss" point.

Another "to do": The Annex 2 to the GFC paper (WSIS-II/PC-3/DOC/6) also 
has a list of "new proposals" to be added to the operational part. They 
in fact deal with substance. This could be a good way to bring back some 
substance and also our issues into the action, but on the other side, we 
risk a re-opening or duplication (probably in weaker shape than in 2003) 
of the Geneva Plan of Action. How do we want to treat this?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050920/71a2fef0/attachment.html