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

[Elizabeth Carll, PhD]

Bertrand,

The various recommendations are excellent.  However, I would like to add one
general point with regard to the first item below.  One of the major
criticisms of the benchmarks and themes, plan of action of the (government)
Geneva Declaration was that it did not go far enough and led to the writing
of the CS Declaration.  The statement below appears to support the
government Declaration.  While as a minimum this is important, it is also
essential to include the benchmarks and thematic clusters from the CS
Declaration, or why did we bother drafting it?

One example which applies to the Health and ICT Working Group was the
inclusion of the recognition of both physical and mental health information.
There were a number or other themes as well.

It is critical not to overlook  the issues which gave rise to the drafting
of the CS WSIS Declaration and work to include these and inclusively move
forward on all previous CS issues.

<<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>>



Thank you for your work on this.

Elizabeth

Dr.  Elizabeth  Carll
International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies;
UN NGO Committee on Mental  Health;
Communications Coordination Committee  for the UN
Tel:  631-754-2424
Fax: 631-754-5032
ecarll at optonline.net




 -----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf
Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2005 10:24 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: followup at wsis-cs.org
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/20050920/35ee6e6d/attachment.html