<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003>Hi Sean,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003>This is helpful. I would just add a
point with respect to structural issues that I also made yesterday on the
governance list. There is no guarantee that the UN will necessarily look
exclusively or even first to the CS structure that's evolved for CS input
on the working group and task force. We already had a situation where ISOC
did a press conference on Internet governance early at WSIS, so (as I understand
it) the governance caucus was told there was no need for it to hold one
covering the same ground. Generalizing the point, now that things are
getting interesting, CS or nominally CS organizations that have not participated
in our structure may wish to weigh in on the working group and task force, and
the UN in turn may wish to selectively reach out to organizations or
individuals it considers to be luminaries to represent third sector views.
Which is to say that we will need to think not only about how we want to
organize internally, but also how we want to position ourselves in relation
to/liaison with other nonparticipating organizations, as well as the
UN.</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003>Best,</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=272232412-20122003>Bill Drake</SPAN></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org
[mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Sean O
Siochru<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, December 19, 2003 3:59 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [WSIS CS-Plenary] WSIS next phase is
different...<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Hi everyone,<BR><BR>I think we should start
thinking about the difference between the run up to the Geneva Summit and the
run up to the Tunis Summit. They will be very different, for a number of
reasons, and hence our approach must also be different. Although it is early
days yet, a few differences might be as follows:<BR><BR>1) The issues
will be narrower in the second Phase, and involve different fora.
<BR><BR>Governments are surely not going to revisit the broad range of issues
that were covered in WSIS I. Issues such as copyright, concentration of
ownership, community media, open source etc. and all the rest will be left the
way they are with regard to a Declaration. We will no longer be working
alongside/in parallel with governments, in an intergovernmental forum, on
these issues.<BR><BR>So the issues open for ongoing discussion seem likely to
be Internet Governance and the Digital Solidarity Fund, and related
matters. In the first, the core of discussion and lobbying might be in,
or directed at, the proposed <B>working group on Internet Governance</B>; in
the second, the <B>Task Force under the auspices of the Secretary General
</B>is the focus. Thus our lobbying focus and actions are likely to
narrower and different.<BR><BR>Another possible area for our participation is
around the Follow-up and Evaluation activities proposed in the action plan -
which seem to have no explicit civil society participation, and certainly
should have. How can we ensure that people-centred criteria are
selected? The data gathered in a coherent manner etc.? (Anyone
know who is expected to lead this? ITU? UN ICT Task
Force?)<BR><BR>2) The Structures of Civil Society in this second stage
are likely to be different. <BR><BR>It could be a big mistake to try to
'institutionalise' the structures we have set up over the last two
years. One of the great values of them is that they have acted more as a
'network' than as formal structures - they were dynamic, fluid, quick to
respond, open and participative (and, yes, very messy at times). This
would change with a move to institutionalisation. Our legitimacy up to
now can be characterised as 'good-enough-legitimacy' (sometimes,
'just-in-time legitimacy', narrowly averting collapse) i.e. although
there were numerous flaws of transparency and accountability in the bodies we
created, almost all of us were willing to work within them because we knew we
could make a fuss, and change them, if enough people felt strongly about
it. They were not set in stone.<BR><BR>I am not suggesting how we should
restructure within the WSIS process - perhaps the best approach will emerge
only gradually, and we must be aware that there might be a very different
attitude from a new Secretariat. A further complicating factor is that
there could be an influx of Tunisian 'civil society' actors, whose sole goal
is to divert and disrupt criticism of Tunisia's human rights record - existing
structures are hardly robust enough for that.<BR><BR>But I am saying that it
is likely that most of the civil society actors involved in the Plenary may
wish to reorganise outside the WSIS process, in their chosen areas of work
(indeed sometimes joining with the WE SEIZE and others external groups).
A couple of examples are given below. <BR><BR>2) Civil Society could
focus on national Action Plan implementation<BR><BR>Implementation of the
Action Plan at national level, in the broad range of areas where action is
called for, is very open at the moment. Unlike for instance the Rio
Summit, where implementation was built-in through e.g. UNDP's Agenda 21,
I cannot see any concrete mechanisms for government to move the Action Plan
forward. I worked with a few governments just before the Summit on how they
intend to implement, and they hadn't a clue! So a key area for civil
society could be at the national level, or even regional level, pursuing
governments in terms of what they intend to do. (The UNDP work that I
was involved with did a trial of a civil-society driven multi-stakeholder
approach to this, which seemed to work well.) An option for existing CS
Working Groups could, for instance, be to coordinate approaches to governments
on matters where positive commitments are in the Action Plan (few enough!),
put pressure on them, and share ideas and results. So the focus
might shift to national and regional levels.<BR><BR>3) Civil Society
could move the issues to new Fora<BR><BR>Many of the issues that we dealt with
but are now effectively closed in the WSIS could be taken elsewhere.
Issues such as copyright (WIPO, WTO), allocation of radio spectrum (ITU,
governments), concentration of media ownership (government, WTO?), cultural
diversity (UNESCO, WTO) and many more are fought out in other global
fora. At the same time, the main collective civil society organising
fora are the World Social Forums, regional and thematic Social Forums, and
other similar events. Perhaps Working Groups might consider how they
could continue their interactions and deliberations in these contexts.
Certainly, the CRIS Campaign, which has always located itself within broader
civil society and not just in the WSIS, intends to do so, and will be seeking
to join with others (as soon as we get a chance to take our
breath).<BR><BR>It would be a shame to waste the impetus and the connections
that were built up during this phase of the WSIS, and they may be frittered
away if we just try to retain them within WSIS phase II. <BR><BR>These
are just a few thoughts, maybe to open a debate when people get the
time.<BR><BR>Bye<BR><BR>Sean. <BR><BR><X-SIGSEP>
<P></X-SIGSEP>___________________________________________________<BR>Seán Ó
Siochrú<X-TAB> </X-TAB>Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599
fax: +353 1 473 0597 <BR>NEXUS Research<X-TAB> </X-TAB>Mobile: +353
87 20 48 150<BR>14 Eaton Brae <X-TAB> </X-TAB>Direct office tel:
+353 1 272 0739
<BR>Shankill<X-TAB> </X-TAB><X-TAB> </X-TAB><X-TAB> </X-TAB><BR>Co.
Dublin<X-TAB> </X-TAB><X-TAB> </X-TAB>e-mail:
sean@nexus.ie<BR>Ireland<X-TAB> </X-TAB><X-TAB> </X-TAB><X-TAB> </X-TAB>Web
site: <A href="http://www.iol.ie/nexus"
eudora="autourl">http://</A>www.iol.ie<A href="http://www.iol.ie/nexus"
eudora="autourl">/nexus</A> </P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>