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

Tue Sep 20 10:27:33 BST 2005

Dear Bertrand

>From the WSIS GC, we are concerned that thematic clusters around action
lines may not actualize into a cluster for gender issues, which going by the
key principle or cornerstone of women's empowerment and gender equality
deserves distinct attention. 

Gender is not an action line and yet a crosscutting issue and it needs to be
mentioned under point 5 below as a separate thematic cluster. We would like
the working group to make this inclusion.

Further, a Thematic Multi-stakeholder Initiative on Gender will be possible
only if gender is recognized as an overarching issue that requires a
concrete mechanism under the framework being suggested. We feel that in the
absence of such a mechanism, attention to gender under the action lines may
be ad-hoc and not systematic.

Request you to take our suggestion.

Point 5 should read as follows:

Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues in larger
Thematic Clusters, taking into account the Geneva Action Lines tangibly.
Gender equality, as an overarching principle and a crosscutting issue,
should be a distinct thematic cluster.

Thank you

Anita on behalf of the Gender Caucus.

anita gurumurthy

IT for Change

 <http://www.ITforChange.net> www.ITforChange.net 

080-26654134

Mobile: 98455-46406

  _____  

From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Ralf Bendrath
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:09 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; WSIS Follow-Up
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Draft Statement for Sub-Committee B (for
Tuesday afternoon)

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/20050920/98f6e993/attachment.html