[WSIS CS-Plenary] Draft Statement for Sub-Committee B (for
Tuesday afternoon)
Jane Johnson
jane at una.dk
Tue Sep 20 10:44:07 BST 2005
The WFUNA Task Force offers the following suggestions to the draft proposal
(bold and underlined): Please also note additional comments at the end of
the text
Statement on behalf of Civil society Working group on WSIS Implementation
and Follow-up
Sub-Committee B – WSIS PrepCom3 – Sept 20, 2005
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.
It is not efficient 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 structured mechanisms.
Flexibility is the second criteria : nobody wants a heavy architecture, cast
in concrete for eternity, but rather an enabling framework. 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.
In this first meting 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 :
1) Any framework must reaffirm the key principles of the Geneva
Declaration and Plan of Action, including :
a. Sustainable development
b. The respect of human rights and particularly freedom of expression
c. Women's empowerment and gender equality
d. Non-discrimination - Add the word multilingualism to:
Non-discrimination using multilingualism
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;
4) Regular Review Meetings must allow all actors to review progress in
an open and multi-stakeholder format. This means more frequent and lighter
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;
5) Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues in
larger Thematic Clusters , taking into account the Geneva Action Lines but
without making them intangible;
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 be instructed to integrate in their own
activities the outcomes of the WSIS and to 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 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.
10) Finally, Resolution 57/270 B 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 in more detail on 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.
In addition:
Emphasize the inclusion of the phrase “full and effective” in CS
participation
Presently there are three to four systems beings proposed for continuance.
We wish to propose the support of one practical, permanent forum, which
includes CS and Private Sector (multistakeholder). Comment especially in
relation to items 4 and 6
-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: followup at wsis-cs.org
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 04:23:57 +0200
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Draft Statement for Sub-Committee B (for Tuesday
afternoon)
Dear all,
Following a first meeting of the Group on Sub-Committee B (aka Working Group
on Implementation and Follow-up) monday evening, please find below the draft
intervention for Tuesday afternoon session. This will be the first session
of the committee and no agreement has so far been reached by governments on
which text the discussion will start upon.
In this context, the choice has been made to focus the ipreliminary
ntervention on a few basic principles and components, building on previous
CS statements from the last two years. This will form the basis for more
concrete formulations in the coming days, once we know the text that will
form the basis for negociation.
Comments are welcome. but the final version will have to be finalized by
lunchtime tuesday and the presentation should not last longer than three to
four minutes (Nnenna will pronounce it). So please rather edit than add.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. The draft is sent to the Plenary
for today, but successive interventions will be circulated on the newly
opened followup mailing list (please subscribe at :
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/followup
Best
Bertrand
Draft TEXT (word version attached)
Statement on behalf of Civil society Working group on WSIS Implementation
and Follow-up
Sub-Committee B – WSIS PrepCom3 – Sept 20, 2005
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.
It is not efficient 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 structured mechanisms.
Flexibility is the second criteria : nobody wants a heavy architecture, cast
in concrete for eternity, but rather an enabling framework. 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.
In this first meting 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 :
1) Any framework must reaffirm the key principles of the Geneva
Declaration and Plan of Action, including :
a. Sustainable development
b. The respect of human rights and particularly freedom of expression
c. Women's empowerment and gender equality
d. Non-discrimination
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;
4) Regular Review Meetings must allow all actors to review progress in
an open and multi-stakeholder format. This means more frequent and lighter
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;
5) Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues in
larger Thematic Clusters , taking into account the Geneva Action Lines but
without making them intangible;
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 be instructed to integrate in their own
activities the outcomes of the WSIS and to 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 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.
10) Finally, Resolution 57/270 B 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 in more detail on 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050920/bff7a1c4/attachment.htm
More information about the Plenary
mailing list