[WSIS Edu] Report

[Meigs]

Many thanks Jane  for keeping watch for us. Other initiatives of this kind
are quite welcome, from those of you who will be participating in a variety
of forums and action line meetings.
Best
Divina




> Dear all
>  
> I have put together a small report (see below and attached) from last weeks
> meetings in Geneva. I hope it will be a useful overview of where we are at the
> moment. I want to underline however that the views expressed are entirely my
> own, and not made on behalf of any organisation or CS entity.
>  
> I will also upload this and other documents and links referred to in the
> report to www.una.dk/wsis <http://www.una.dk/wsis>
>  
> Warm regards
>  
> Jane
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------
> Report from Information Society Week in Geneva
>  
> The main topic to follow during the past week has, perhaps surprisingly, been
> the proceedings of the 9th session of the CSTD, although especially the
> discussion on the action line implementation also required some attention. It
> is not yet quite clear in which direction things are going. However some core
> were issues debated throughout the week, these included:
>  
> 1. First of all it had,  at the beginning of the week, not yet been firmly
> settled the CSTD (via  ECOSOC) is going to be responsible for the system-wide
> follow-up, although  this is actually stated in paragraph 105 of the Tunis
> Agenda. During the week  however it seemed that this was widely accepted.
> 2. 
> 3.  
> 4. Secondly and even  more important was the question of the role of CS and
> the private sector.
> 5. 
> 6.  
> 7. The proposal of an  open ended working group
> 8. 
> 9.  
> 10. Issues relating to  the linkage between the work with the action lines,
> general content and the  work of the CSTD.
> 11. 
> 12.  
> 13. And overall the  reformed structure of the CSTD
> 14. 
> 
> In response to these and other questions, the CS entities here prepared a
> basic outline of elements being debated here and CS initial response to these
> (see Renata¹s posting to plenary today May 22nd, which I have also attached to
> this update). The outline is just meant as a point of reference and can be
> both altered at elaborated on as the process moves along. However it seemed
> important to have some common text to feed into the proceedings.
> 
> We had two informal sessions during the IS week, Tuesday and Thursday, where
> CS have been on the presentation panel and have been able to also freely
> engage in the discussion from the floor. It is still very clear that the CSTD
> is not quite used to this type of open exchange and their idea of a
> multi-stakeholder approach is to invite experts to sit on panels or contribute
> to publications. However on Tuesday the debate did get into really discussing
> the concept of ³multi-stakeholderrism² and most governments at least said that
> they supported and wanted other actors involved. There were however, quite
> diverging opinions on what this meant and this was also tied very closely to
> the debate on the reformed structure and new mandate of the CSTD and also to
> some extent the role of the Global Alliance in the follow-up measures.  It was
> feared by CS entities present that the Global Alliance would be used to
> legitimise the lack of broader multi-stakeholder presence in the CSTD
> procedures and annual sessions on WSIS follow-up. CS entities present
> therefore also argued that this was the only intergovernmental commission
> which would deal with follow-up and that precedence had been set by other
> summit follow-up commissions to include stakeholders, which had been present
> in the summit process, but had no ECOSOC status (see CS statement). This ³fast
> track² approach was, at least informally, on Thursday accepted as a possible
> outcome. Another big issue tied into this though was also in which format this
> follow-up should take place and in what way it should be structured.
>  
> The background note issued by UNCTAD and which was used as a frame of
> reference for the discussions (see attached) suggested that a two-year ³cycle²
> (as is the case also now) where one annual session would be devoted to review
> and the other to policy, would also include WSIS follow-up. It was therefore
> of key importance to secure that WSIS CS entities would be able to be involved
> in these sessions especially if, as it seems to be the intention, that action
> line follow-up and reporting will take place during these follow-up sessions.
> This was also why a number of international organisations, esp. ITU, and some
> governments were very keen on underlining that there is great distinction
> between implementation (such as the action lines) where procedures and
> sessions are open to all stakeholders and system-wide follow-up, which at
> least at the outset are guided by the participatory rules of the UN.
> 
> 
> It is however also key to note that most of the debate focused on structure,
> mandate and strategy for the future work of the CSTD and very little was said
> about the actual content of the future work of the Commission. It was noted by
> many stakeholders however, that the work of the CSTD had so far focused on
> Science and Technology for Development, i.e. a very technical approach and
> very little time had been devoted to also take the broader implications of the
> information society on both social and political development, including the
> rights based approach, into consideration.
>  
> As it did not seem to be possible to finalize a common approach to these
> issues by the end of the information society week, the delegation of Chile
> suggested that an open ended working group could be set up to formulate
> suggestions either in the interim period or during the ECOSOC substantial
> session in July, where the final mandate, structure and format of the CSTD and
> it¹s role in WSIS follow-up will be determined. The Chilean delegate noted
> that the working group would be ³with the participation of representatives of
> civil society and the private sector, with the task to prepare draft proposals
> on the reform of the Commission, which could be considered by ECOSOC
> in its July substantive session. UNCTAD, as the CSTD's secretariat, could
> organize this encounter in cooperation with interested parties². As the
> working group seemed to be a good way of securing CS views, also in terms of
> future inclusion, the CS entities present supported this approach (see
> statement).
>  
> Although a lot of time was devoted to follow the CSTD sessions, Action line
> (AL) implementation discussions took place all week. A broad range of the
> action lines ­ C1, C2, C4, C5, C6, C7 (e-government, e-business and
> e-employment) were discussed throughout the week and some talked about the
> possibility of continuing the format of the Information Society week, thus
> having action line discussions and other implementation approaches debated in
> connection to the annual CSTD session. The discussions on the action lines
> varied according to how structured debate was, who facilitated the debate and
> the format of the proceedings (for more information on AL proceedings and
> submission of comments see http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/index.html
> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/index.html> . However some overarching
> issues influenced the discussions. First of all there is the ever-present
> issue of multi-stakeholder inclusion. In this case the discussion is not
> focused on if, as the consultations are open to anyone, but rather how and in
> which format. So far most facilitators have set up web-sites where
> organisations and individuals can submit inputs (again se
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/index.html
> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/index.html> ) but the question in the
> long run is how to initiate a more substantial discussion and how best to
> exchange best practises and not least challenges. At the moment the approach
> is to set up mailing lists for those interested in discussing specific issues
> and perhaps use questionnaires and sites like the WSIS stocktaking website to
> exchange best practises, however it will still take an effort to reach broader
> segments and actors. In addition it is important to note that it is possible
> to sign up as co-facilitator, which allows for the possibility that each AL
> has a key facilitator in the organisation, which was appointed to do so and a
> co-facilitator from each of the other stakeholder groups.
> 
> 
> Another important issue is how to coordinate with other relevant and related
> action line discussions and related to this the range of themes and approaches
> taken on in each AL.
> 
> 
> The final item of the week was the open consultation on the Internet
> Governance Forum, key issues being how to structure the work of the MAG, the
> themes for the coming meeting in Athens and how to include as many
> stakeholders as possible in the process prior to and during the Athens
> meeting. Especially the MAG and its composition and the themes for Athens
> have, as you are aware, been widely discussed on-line.  I only attended the
> morning session Friday May 19th. It was quite clear that both the IGF and the
> MAG were new elements in the system and the chair Nitin Desai also noted that
> the MAG format was an experiment and the experiences gained from this approach
> will aid in determining the future format of work, proceedings etc. in the
> IGF. 
>  
> The discussion on Friday morning was therefore also quite open and aimed at
> just getting some input from a broader spectre of interested parties. In
> relation to inclusion, suggestions ranged from the level of openness in the
> core proceedings (comparisons were made between the approach of the UN and the
> set up of the Social Forum), whether or not to include side-events and in
> which format to last but not least remote participation.
>  
> The bulk of interventions however, focused on the themes to be taken up at the
> Athens meeting. Core issues were (at the top of the ³list² and with inherent
> sub-issues) capacity building, access, interconnection costs, policy and
> financing, civil liberties/human rights and privacy and security. UNESCO, APC
> and IP Justice however underlined that issues such as capacity building and
> not least the broad range of human rights issues, do not exist outside the
> debate of the other topics, but are engrained in them (for more details see
> the posting by Robin Gross to the plenary list on May 22nd).
>  
> I hope this short report conveys to you a little of what went one during the
> IS week and give you an idea of where we are at the moment. I think on the one
> hand that there are ample opportunity for US and CS to influence both
> implementation and follow-up on the other, it is quite evident that the idea
> of a multi-stakeholder approach and especially what it entails in post-WSIS
> terms is not yet a given and CS must continuously insist on being included at
> all levels. 
>  
> I will upload the most important documents and statements mentioned in this
> update on www.una.dk/wsis <http://www.una.dk/wsis>  as soon as possible.
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Edu mailing list
> Edu at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/edu


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/edu/attachments/20060525/a5e02ceb/attachment.htm