[CS Bureau] Reminder - report from WSIS CS meeting in Berlin on Saturday

Thu Dec 2 16:20:29 GMT 2004

I am taking the liberty of forwarding Ralf's message to the plenary 
to the bureau list.

It's  a summary of the recent meeting in Berlin - where many key 
items were discussed related, which we should take into consideration 
and build-upon at our meeting on the weekend.

regards

Robert

>From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
>To: wsis-cs-plenary <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] report from WSIS CS meeting in Berlin on Saturday
>Sender: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org
>Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:05:06 +0100
>
>Hi all,
>
>I think we had a very constructive discussion at the Berlin meeting 
>on Saturday and came up with some good ideas. You've already seen 
>the first outcome in Rik's mail on the WG on Working Methods.
>
>Below see the minutes from that meeting. For the speed readers, 
>here's the extra-short version:
>
>Major tasks to be done:
>- CS travel funding
>- fast and substantive work on finance
>- linking WSIS CS with other information policy networks and movements
>- discusssion on WSIS 2005 follow-up, including implementation
>**
>
>Next events to prepare for:
>- African regional meeting in February
>- PrepCom2 in February
>- UN ICT TF in April
>
>Best, Ralf
>
>-------------------------------------
>
>*WSIS Civil Society Meeting*
>*Berlin**, newthinking store*
>*20 November 2004, 15:00-18:00***
>
>***Participants: *36 NGO people from 14 countries and 4 continents
>*Chair: *Rik Panganiban
>*Minutes: *Ralf Bendrath (corrected / updated version, 24 November 2004)
>
>*Agenda *
>- UN ICT TF  our assessment of the meeting
>- Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)
>- Task Force on Financing Mechanisms (TFFM ) / Digital Solidarity Fund (DSF)
>- procedures for WSIS CS organization
>- overall CS strategy
>- PrepCom2
>- Reports
>o WIPO
>o Youth Caucus
>
>
>**
>
>*UN ICT Task Force & Global Forum *
>
>- sense of *frustration *from the conference
>
>o unclear if the TF members really took note of all comments
>
>o they did not really include CS issues in the reports from breakout groups
>
>o CS written input needed to be submitted to the TF?
>
>- important to have links to the TF
>
>o *new TF chair soon*, but unclear when it's being announced
>
>- Proposal from APC to do the CS participation mapping project in WG1
>
>o will be important to have CS participation there
>
>- next *ICT TF meeting is on education*
>
>o *in **Ireland** in April (5 days)* (Karen: ³Ireland, cool ;-)²)
>
>o Ireland is pretty excited about it, will pay the Human Capacity WG 
>5.8 mio $ for global E-School initiative
>
>o Ireland is pretty approachable
>
>o Our links to Dublin should concentrate on Brendan Tuohy and Art 
>Reilly  the 2 new Vice Chairs of UN ICT Taskforce. ³Brendan is 
>absolutely the man in Dublin² - see 
><http://www.dcmnr.ie/display.asp/pg=748>
>
>o we should think about what we want to have as headlines for the 
>breakout groups
>
>- *ICT TF's main purpose was testing ground for WSIS *PC2 and general Phase 2
>
>o Conflicts for PrepCom2 are becoming clearer:
>
>§ *Finance*
>
>§ *global Taxes*
>
>§ *Global Goods*
>
>- important for us to be there and discuss and speak out
>
>o pretty open discussion between CS and Private Sector,
>
>o better than at WSIS
>
>- *metrics / stocktaking*
>
>o big issue in TF Global Forum
>
>o let's get involved in the metric development (indicators etc.)
>
>*WSIS 2005 Follow-Up
>*
>- *Suggestions that were heard *at ICT TF
>
>o ICT TF is suggesting a *³global alliance²* concept
>
>§ multi-stakeholder outreach group to find out if there would be support
>
>o GFC drafts: *conference series or within existing UN bodies?*
>
>o *WGIG successor panel *as main mechanism proposed by Abu-Ghazaleh, 
>VC of ICT TF
>
>o other mechanisms
>
>- *good news is: all these suggestions are multi-stakeholder*
>
>- deeper discussion on this will probably start at PC2
>
>*WGIG*
>
>- CS members report the WGIG is just getting organized
>
>- Markus Kummer is very open
>
>- CS mostly concerned about process issues
>
>- mailing list for CS members in WGIG (wgig at wsis-cs.org) not used yet
>
>- CS discussion will for the moment take place on the IG Caucus list
>
>- *CS lacks procedures for this kind of situation*
>
>o we need to clarify
>
>§ our role in the official process,
>
>§ our content,
>
>§ and our internal procedures for joint positions
>
>- *our role: *
>
>o the WGIG is a new animal
>
>o CS will *try to take the lead*
>
>- *our content*
>
>o *Content positions (e.g. end-to-end principle) have to be formulated*
>
>§ the issue matrix sent out as a questionnaire by the WGIG staff is 
>not really taken too serious by most CS members.
>
>§ Don MacLean made some interesting remarks on this in the 
>wgig at unog.ch <mailto:wgig at unog.ch> list for WGIG members:
>
>>  >the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action had quite a bit
>to say about Internet governance, both explicitly and implicitly, in terms of:
>
>1. Governance objectives  including ³an equitable distribution of 
>resources, facilitate access for all, ensure a stable and secure 
>functioning of the Internet, with multilingualism²
>
>2. General ICT4D issues that have significant, Internet-related 
>components  including ³access to infrastructure and services, 
>access to information and knowledge, confidence and security in the 
>use of ICTs, social and economic applications, cultural and 
>linguistic diversity, freedom of communications media, ethical 
>dimensions²
>
>3. Institutional arrangements  which should be ³multilateral, 
>transparent, democratic, with the full involvement of governments, 
>the private sector, civil society and international organizations²
>
>4. Practical working methods  including ³partnerships among all 
>stakeholders, capacity building, international and regional 
>cooperation²<<
>
>- *our internal procedures *for joint positions
>
>o people are nominated as individuals and not representing constituencies
>
>§ they have to *provide access *to the process
>
>§ individuals and organisations do need the freedom to advocate 
>their positions
>
>§ wherever possible *facilitate broader based support*
>
>- Viola Krebs and Karen Banks are working on a *translation strategy 
>for the WGIG*
>
>o they have agreed with Kummer
>
>o hopefully all 6 UN languages
>
>- WGIG link to GFC is not clear yet
>
>
>*TFFM /DSF*
>
>- TFFM is exchanging drafts with GFC
>
>- *first draft is ready*, but not published
>
>- *CS finance discussions*
>
>o caucus is discussing position paper (mostly in French)
>
>o other discussions: Switzerland, Germany, Africa, APC
>
>o African regional meeting, February in Accra (Ghana)
>
>§ African CS main issue: from WSIS to national implementation
>
>o *better coordination needed*
>
>- *DSF*
>
>o a lot of people have been approached to give money
>
>o others are concerned it will turn into global tax
>
>o *confusion among governments *about the DSF
>
>§ some call it "the DSF", others say "a DSF"
>
>§ link to official WSIS process is very unclear
>
>§ would be considered Œan alternative financing mechanism¹
>
>§ they want to engage other organizations and individuals
>
>o *CS from Africa should be included in the DSF*
>
>§ who are the 8 CS reps on the board and how are they being selected?
>
>§ *specific request for more info and expressing interest in being 
>involved could come from African caucus*
>
>*Online Collaboration*
>
>- We need a *FAQ *on the 3 or 4 'threads' of WSIS II
>
>o and somewhere we can link to relevant docs
>
>o the basics on WGIG and TFFM are on the worldsummit2005.org site, 
>but need more
>
>- *online consultations *for TFFM and WGIG
>
>o did not really work, only a few contributions
>
>o need for additional tools than online platform for WGIG
>
>- APC suggested to UNDP to *have at least a parallel mail based consultation*
>
>o email is the lowest common denominator
>
>o anything web-based will exclude many.
>
>- we *need a suite of tools*, coordinating feedback across them all
>
>- *Wiki *would be really helpful
>
>*CS Rules and Procedures*
>
>- *CS Caucuses*
>
>o Caucus mechanism is a *good bottom-up process*, worked pretty well
>
>o *Phase two different*, as summit declaration is finished now (most 
>issues besides financing and IG are closed since Geneva)
>
>o *Options: *
>
>§ maintain caucuses as watchdog for official documents
>
>§ focus on implementation
>
>§ link to other for a and networks
>
>§ transform them into more general activists networks beyond WSIS
>
>- *CS Content and Themes (CT) group *
>
>o still needed
>
>§ for *our coordination*,
>
>§ *was also important for Sammassekou to interact with us*
>
>o good for input, not so good for legitimacy
>
>o needs to be *more inclusive*
>
>- *CS Bureau *
>
>o is more problematic, as it was
>
>§ more developed top-down
>
>§ replicating the intergovernmental structure
>
>o *bureau meeting planned in Capetown in December*
>
>§ needs really good facilitation, otherwise it won't work
>
>o *constituency / elections of board members?*
>
>o restructuring of bureau is needed urgently
>
>o proposal for restructuring was made in Hammamet
>
>o *should bureau reform itself? *experience shows it¹s not enough.
>
>***--> Suggestion to form a Working Group on CS rules and procedures*
>
>- we need a *report on experiences *before proposing to restructure again
>
>o Karen has done some work documenting Hammamet
>
>§ how we have worked,
>
>§ what didn't work
>
>§ and a start on what we need to do to make it work
>
>§ got some feedback but not from all families
>
>- point of departure is
>
>o how we have operated in Phase one
>
>o lessons learned from Hammamet
>
>o how to move on, on what basis?
>
>- we are on the starting point of shaping a global public for 
>information society policy
>
>o CT group and Bureau were already mentioned in Cardoso report
>
>o *CS rules and procedures working group will be of value much 
>further than WSIS*
>
>- Examples to draw from:
>
>o look at the *CS committee on rules and procedures we already had 
>at PrepCom 1 in 2002*
>
>o *internet world:*
>
>§ make the rules as flexible as possible
>
>§ working groups on issues
>
>§ *"steering group" *than more or less functions as a router
>
>§ what is *missing is a mechanism for conflict resolution */ 
>decision making under disagreement
>
>o CS national *consultations in India*
>
>§ done in the 16 official languages
>
>§ have language coordinators
>
>§ work through English for the drafting document and then re-translate it
>
>- *Some of us later worked on a draft for this working group on CS 
>rules and procedures. *
>
>o *Rik will send the outcomes around (see his mail from 23 November 2004)*
>
>* *
>
>* CS overall structure and strategy*
>
>* *- *WSIS II structure is different*
>
>- so *we can't just reproduce the CS structures from phase one*, 
>where we just watched two documents
>
>- *stuff happening on different tracks*
>
>o TFFM
>
>o WGIG
>
>o GFC
>
>o Implementation/stocktaking and indicators
>
>- *we need working groups with focal points*
>
>- one of our challenges is to *create linkages between WSIS and 
>other processes*
>
>o WSIS CS is largely delinked from the (largely) CRIS networks 
>mobilising around WIPO, WTO, UNESCO convention on culture, etc.
>
>o WSIS CS similarly de-linked from the social movements around the 
>social fora processes
>
>- would be great if we could all get it together
>
>o the European social forum demonstrated the benefit of maintaining 
>strong relationships between the activists and the more traditional 
>NGOs
>
>o the Indymedia server 'incident' is another good example of where 
>autonomous activists and NGOs worked closely together for mutual 
>benefit
>
>- *Diversity of CS will increase in phase 2*, as more groups are coming in
>
>o how to deal with it?
>
>o diversity increases chance for conflicts
>
>o *give up striving for consensus*
>
>§ we can't let the consensus principle block us from stating our positions
>
>§ in these cases, just have two or more positions and give all of 
>these as input
>
>§ move away from consensus to developing positions of like minded groups
>
>§ *what are the operational impacts speakers, time, who get's it etc.?*
>
>*PrepCom 2 Preparations*
>
>- we need to prepare our *CS demands for the Summit*, as the 
>structure of it will be discussed in PC2
>
>- CONGO and others will prepare *pre-PrepCom CS events*.
>
>- WGIG will also meet on the 2 days prior to prepcom
>
>- better early *coordination needed between African CS and overall 
>CS like C&T group*
>
>o otherwise we will have a Hammamet situation again
>
>- *CS travel funding, especially for African CS needed*
>
>o Tunisia¹s 500.000 Dinar announced at PrepCom1
>
>§ ³this money won't leave the country²
>
>§ will only be used for the summit, not prepcoms
>
>o we need other sources to ensure participation at PrepComs
>
>*WIPO*
>
>Robin Gross reporting from *WIPO meeting on broadcasting treaty this week*
>
>- anti-circumvention provisions
>
>o Brazil wants to have this language removed
>
>o CS too
>
>- webcasting
>
>o USA is virtually alone in demanding to extend the broadcasting 
>treaty to webcasting
>
>§ but the language is still in the draft
>
>- exceptions for education, libraries etc., supported by developing 
>countries and NGOs
>
>o on the agenda of next meeting
>
>- *Scandalous WIPO behaviour*
>
>o WIPO people are really bullying delegates to accept the treaty
>
>§ if that does not work, they go over their heads and call their capitals
>
>o also problems with CS participation
>
>§ this time no real CS input possible
>
>§ CS speaking slots were almost completely dropped out
>
>§ they only got one slot after some developing countries made a big deal of it
>
>§ CS papers (official input) were taken from tables and found in 
>trash afterwards
>
>- Next steps
>
>o Chair suggested regional meetings (easier to influence individual 
>governments there)
>
>o Brazil asked for an open intersessional meeting
>
>§ seconded by Africa, India, Syria, Iran etc.
>
>o Chair (Finland) dropped that out of the final report
>
>o big fight between Brazil, India and others and the Chair
>
>- weird situation: WIPO people arguing with member countries.
>
>o India: It's not the role of the chair or of WIPO to argue with us 
>- they should serve us!
>
>o *WIPO is mostly independent of government funding*
>
>- no agreement in the end, *whole process is under question now*
>
>
>
>*Youth Caucus representation*
>
>- MILSET wants to do a youth summit
>
>o parallel to the WSIS summit 2005
>
>o supported by Tunisia
>
>- *no consultation with youth caucus*, though the latter has tried for months
>
>- *Update from 22 November 2004*
>
>o The Youth Caucus was waiting on reports from the meeting that took 
>place last week (see www.milset.org <http://www.milset.org/>) to see 
>if they would get through in some way.
>
>o Some breakthrough has in fact occurred in that direction (via the 
>Tunisian WSIS YC) - they will be sending a draft proposal in the 
>next few days - which the Youth Caucus will input on.
>
>o Hopefully this will be a continuous and reflective process.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary

-- 
###
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org>