[WSIS CS-Plenary] New version of the draft statement for Sub-Committee B today

[Anita Gurumurthy]

Dear Bertrand

 

Thanks for changing point 5.. But it still leaves things vague.. I am not
sure if we should hesitate to put in a line on gender just because there are
other interest groups.

 

The point about gender equality is that it concerns all of us, above and
beyond other interests that we espouse. I know the difficulties involved in
pushing for it.. but how do we make sure that a key principle does not get
lost in the nuts and bolts?

 

The phrase "but without making them exclusive" does not suggest what else
may be concretely required.

 

Pl consider the following 

 

Any framework should enable the progressive grouping of issues in larger
Thematic Clusters, taking into account the Geneva Action Lines and other
themes such as gender that are crosscutting.

 

Thanks

 

anita

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 Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:32 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: followup at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] New version of the draft statement for
Sub-Committee B today

 

Dear all,

 

Find below the revised version of the draft. I think I have been able to
incorporate all of them and ask for forgiveness if I have forgotten
anything.  

 

See you at 12 down in the Serpentine bar.

 

I take the opportunity to say I fully support the last points Ralf raised :

 

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?  
 

 

Best

 

Bertrand

 

New version V3 :

 

  

Statement on behalf of Civil society Working group 
on WSIS Implementation and Follow-up

Sub-Committee B - WSIS PrepCom3 - Sept 20, 2005

(V3)

 

 

 

In November, the Summit itself will be over. Geneva produced valuable
Principles and a comprehensive Agenda for Action. Tunis must now produce an
innovative and inclusive follow-up framework up to the importance of the
challenge. This framework must be both effective and flexible. 

 

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 iron, 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. 

 

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
the following key elements that any framework must contain to be efficient
and flexible. 

 

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

a.      Sustainable development and global solidarity 

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

c.     Women's empowerment and gender equality 

d.     Non-discrimination 

e.      Cultural diversity and multilingualism 

2)           Any framework should be based on a sincere 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 organize the relations between them in the
three dimensions of 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 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 defined with full
participation of civil society;

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 exclusive;

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 in 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 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.
Sub-committee B should also take into account discussions in Sub-Committee A
on policy forum functions related to Internet Governance. 

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.


 

The above key elements will guide our specific drafting amendments in the
coming days. They will also be the benchmarks by which we will judge the
Operational Part of the Tunis Document. 

 

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/e188d1d2/attachment.html