<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="State"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Narrow";
panose-1:2 11 5 6 2 2 2 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Dear Ralf and Bertrand,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> Thanks Ralf, for putting forward the
different options we have in front of us, and putting it together in a
strategic framework – of what is best to work on, and achievable. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I have a few comments which only build on
what have is being discussed here, and may be considered in addition to them.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>First, I will clarify that I did not say
that all is lost, neither that CS SHOULD walk away. But I insist that a lot is
certainly being lost -and I don’t agree with Ralf’s assertion that this
may not be so – and that just a 57/270 linked follow up can be as good or
even better. I only mean that that the first few days at the prepcom are
crucial and the CS must be very pro-active, conscious that much may be getting
lost. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On ‘specific follow up’ versus
‘57/270’ Bertrand has anticipated much of my response. 57/270 is an
add-on and an internal rule-making for UN functioning. In that sense it is the
very minimum and not a maximum. Every summit is allowed to put in its own
follow-up mechanism and these can then be coordinated in the 57/270 framework
with other follow-ups etc. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So, in this context we need to see some special
characteristics of WSIS – which doesn’t necessarily make it more
important than other summits but certainly different – I have discussed these
issues a few times earlier – about issues being cross-cutting, they being
evolving, they often being paradigm redefining whereby existing mandates of UN
agencies can be limiting and used by vested interests to block-out policy
discussions on emergent IS policy issues. For all these reasons, WSIS needs
more specific and more multi-pronged follow-up mechanisms. And that was also the
logic of the original draft. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The specificity of the needed follow-ups
for WSIS need not be limited by 57/270. And what would be the political mandate
and direction given at WSIS is not of the same order as the sanitized bureaucratic
implementation, ‘as per existing rules’. 57/270 is in any case
there, and to re-affirm it at the summit doesn’t add much. And if that is
being done then as <st1:country-region w:st="on">Brazil</st1:country-region>
stated at the GFC meeting – this <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tunis</st1:place></st1:State>
phase was really not needed. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On Ralf’s poser -- >> </span></font>Why
should we push for a<br>
new playground that is disconnected from the core of the UN>><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>We really are not looking for any forum
disconnected form the core of the UN. Any follow-up mechanism will still be
embedded in the core of the UN. I mean, if ITU alternative is what is alluded
to by Ralf, I will like to say that I was never for a ITU led follow-up, I am
fine with follow-up in ECOSOC framework – even ICT TF is in that
framework – but that doesn’t stop world leaders to give political direction
on setting up specific follow up structures. And give clear direction to UN agencies
to get the WSIS implementation/ follow up integrated into their activities,
rather than merely say, they ‘could’ do it. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So whatever virtues Ralf mentions about
using the WSIS follow up to generally improve UN spaces from CS point of view are
still available even if we go for more well specified follow-up structures. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I think we should be clear that while
getting the MSP philosophy more and more into global policy spaces is important,
this is just one of the imperatives we fight for. There is the other issue of
keeping up effective global policy engagements on IS<i><span style='font-style:
italic'> </span></i>issues among all actors and ensuring effective implementation/
follow-up. And the attempt by US and others to minimize political commitment to
opening such new spaces is a very political act that requires a political response……..<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>I am laboring these points only to insist
that in pursuance of a strategy we may not lose the sight of the ‘truth’.
Lets be clear on the truth, and still follow the best strategy for gaining whatever
can be gained through the process. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>So 57/270 can stay and we should still
fight for as much clarity on what exactly the follow-up mechanism will be –
I am even ready to settle for a reformed ICT TF like structure in ECOSOC
framework with clearer political mandate than just being like all other
follow-ups. So we need to fight for as much as we can gain on this count. Getting
a clear political mandate from the summit is always better than, for example trusting
Annan to do the best. I think he is a good man but I am unwilling to leave
things to that….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>And when we speak about also being ready
with an possible ‘exit’ option we should remember that points ‘11’
and ‘35’ are still not agreed to by the US and remain bracketed. US
wants complete removal of any mention of follow-up etc in any real way. This may
be its strategy to take an extreme position and then give a few crumbs of
concession – but CS need not begin to accept the diluting of the follow-up
as something logical and acceptable. We may have to negotiate and not get what
we want, but to begin to ‘understand’ the other position, while it
helps to develop ours, too much of it can even weaken our negotiating strength.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>And Ralf, I assure you, it is a long way
before anyone starts to think you have softened too much and become a moderate </span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Wingdings><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
Wingdings;color:navy'>J</span></font><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>. Your reputation remains
unsullied. Look forward to seeing you in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:City w:st="on">Geneva</st1:City></st1:place>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Best regards<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>_________________________________________________</span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>Parminder Jeet
Singh</span></font><font color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>IT for Change</span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><em><i><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>Bridging
Development Realities and Technological Possibilities</span></font></i></em><font
size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:
"Arial Narrow";color:gray'> </span></font><font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=gray face="Arial Narrow"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Arial Narrow";color:gray'>91-80-26654134</span></font><font
color=navy><span style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color=navy face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt;color:navy'><a href="http://www.ITforChange.net"><em><i><font
size=2 face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>www.ITforChange.net</span></font></i></em></a></span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'> </span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'>
plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org] <b><span
style='font-weight:bold'>On Behalf Of </span></b>Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, September 18, 2005
12:22 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> plenary@wsis-cs.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary]
Revised GFC draft - strategic aspects</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Dear Ralf, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Thanks for the analysis; strategic as ever. I cannot but
smile in seeing you mention your sounding "too moderate" :-) I fully
support your remarks. Some additional comments, that also respond to
Parminder's remarks. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>1) It is too early to consider the game lost. There are interesting
aspects in the parts on implementation that could become really positive if
they were more committing (like "should" instead of "could", or
"may", etc...). In particular, if governments could "pledge to
set up multi-stakeholder implementation frameworks at the national level"
instead of being "encouraged" to do it, this could provide a very
interesting tool for further action at the local level. Same for international
organizations that "should" facilitate the formation of thematic
multi-stakeholder initiatives and not only "could". These
are only two elements; we will be able to discuss others further during
the Prepcom. But this session is critical. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>2) In the first phase, there was some ambiguity during the
preparatory process : drafting was done as if the final documents were going to
be signed by all actors, including civil society. We know what happened : in
the end it was simply a declaration of governments, because thay wanted it and
because civil society made an alternative declaration anyway. This time, there
is no such ambiguity : the final Tunis Declaration will be a governmental
declaration only . This has two consequences at least : <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- in the text, governments can/should be forced to make
explicit commitments binding each of them; in the first example above, the
present formulation "we encourage governments" is extremely strange :
they are the ones signing it; so if they think it is a good idea to
set up national multi-stakeholder implementation frameworks, nothing is
preventing them to do it on their own; there is no better space to do
it. In fact it is their very responsibility and no government should be
allowed to sign the Declaration without this personnal commitment. The present
formulation would only be appropriate if civil society organizations were
also signing the text. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- there is a very simple "exit" strategy/threat
: if the final document appears too weak in terms of commitment (just
reiterating the Geneva Documents and saying : this should be implemented the
way we always do it in the UN), it will be very easy to issue a public
statement exposing it and denouncing the incredible waste of time and money of
the last two years. As a matter of fact, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Brazil</st1:place></st1:country-region> has already used the
argument on Sept 6 in the public GFC meeting, saying : "if we only say
everybody should do it the way they have always done it, what was the purpose
of the second phase ?" This is a very strong argument and one that could
get press attention. CS does not need to walk away. Indeed, CS is the
community willing to move forward with actors who do want to accomplish
something and not see wasted the energy and time devoted to this process in the
last four years. Some governments might want to join and set upt something more
efficient as an outcome of this. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>3) <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Tunis</st1:place></st1:State>
is all about implementation and the participation of non-governmental actors in
it. It is unique. Traditional summits usually shelve declarations as soon
as they are signed and governments wait five - sometimes ten - years before
review summits take note that little progress has actually been made. Holding a
second summit two years only after the first one has forced governments to face
an issue they usually carafully avoid : the implementaion of decisions they
have adopted. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Of course, a great uncertainty remains on what follow-up mechanisms
will be put in place - and even on whether there will be any such mechanism at
all, given the strong objection of the United States. Nevertheless, all
discussionsin the last two years (particularly in the context of the WGIG)
point in the direction of a broader acceptance of a
"multi-stakeholder" approach and the need to include civil society at
all levels, national, regional and international. This is a progress and an
opportunity to set a precedent in this respect. This has to be secured and the
formulation "full and effective" (or any equivalent allowing
governments to save face) is indeed a key point that should not be dropped. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>4) Resolution 57/270 B will not be dropped, you are right. Still, I
note that this resolution, beyond its incredibly contorted language, should not
be interpreted the way it is by governments, as a limitation of the possibility
to establish a real follow-up and implementation framework : <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- its very origin comes from the fact that (quote) : "after a
decade of such events (ie summits), progress in implementation has been
insufficient and therefore the time has come to vigorously pursue effective
implementation"; in other words, one reason for this resolution is the
fact that governments do not live up to their commitments : do they really want
to insist on that ? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- 57/270 is also directed at the organizations of the UN system,
to make sure they all take into account the outcomes of various summits,
instead of letting their recommendations sleep in a drawer as usual; this
resolution therefore sets a minimum, not a maximum; how could anybody want to
prevent establishing even more efficient mechanisms ? <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>- for that very reason, it cannot be regarded as
preventing any summit to put in place more detailed follow-up mechanisms
of its own; in fact, the very beggining of resolution 57/270 (in its
paragraph4) precisely mentions the need to remind governments of their
obligation to "fulfill their commitments regarding the means of
implementation contained in the relevant paragraphs of the outcomes documents
of [each summit]" and even explicitly mentions the "Plan of
Implementation of the World Summit on sustainable Development
(Johannesburg)" <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>5) Finally, in terms of strategy, CS actors present in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:City> next week should remember that there
is little time, that there are only two issues on the table (IG and follow-up).
Both are about process and this PrepCom is all about drafting : issues
outside the scope of those two themes (substantive or related to the Tunis
Summit itself) should be handled in parallel with the negociation
process to allow the best use of this limited time. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>There are other points in your paper that I wanted to address but this
is enough for the moment I suppose :-)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Looking forward to seeing you in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:City>.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Best<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>Bertrand<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span class=gmailquote><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>On 9/17/05, <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Ralf
Bendrath</span></b> <<a href="mailto:bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de">bendrath@zedat.fu-berlin.de</a>>
wrote:</span></font></span> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
people] <br>
<br>
Click <a href="http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/">http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/</a>
to access automatic translation of this message!<br>
_______________________________________<br>
<br>
Thanks for the compliation, Bertrand - really helpful. <br>
<br>
BTW: The latest drafts of the Political Chapeau and the Operation Part are<br>
now online as annexes to the report on the work of the GFC:<br>
<<a href="http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1867|0">
http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1867|0</a>><br>
<br>
I want to provide some comments on Parminder's comments, and an attempt to<br>
look at the big picture (especially on creating a new forum vs. the UNGA <br>
57/270 ECOSOC approach) below. I hope it is somehow understandable, I am<br>
already getting lost in all the dfferent draft versions...<br>
<br>
Parminder wrote:<br>
<br>
> So, instead of heeding opposition to the original changes proposed by <br>
> the chair, the draft document is only going from bad to worse.<br>
I am not totally convinced of this, at least if we look at the<br>
international / UN level.<br>
<br>
my formatting in ASCII below:<br>
<new language> <br>
<--deleted language--><br>
<br>
If you look at the new para 12:<br>
"At the national level, based on the WSIS outcomes, we encourage<br>
governments to set up a national implementation framework with <--full and <br>
effective participation--> of civil society and business entities;<br>
<br>
Roughly the same for new para 13c:<br>
"We consider a multi-stakeholder approach and the <--full and
effective--><br>
participation in regional WSIS implementation activities by civil society <br>
and business entities to be essential."<br>
<br>
This is bad, and we seriuosly have to fight this. We have to insist that<br>
<br>
I support Bertrand's suggestions at the GFC meeting on 6 September<br>
(from Renata's report: § 10: "We <--acknowledge--> >affirm>
that <br>
multi-stakeholder participation"; § 12: We <--encourage->
<pledge><br>
governments to set up; have the possibility should support...).<br>
<br>
But we at the moment should ask to go back to the original language: <br>
§10: "continuous and substantial involvement" instead of
"participation".<br>
<br>
But then you also have:<br>
<br>
new para 14c:<br>
"The modalities of coordination of implementation activities among the UN<br>
agencies should be defined by the UN Secretary General on the basis of <br>
existing practices within the UN system <--[-->and within the
WSIS<--]-->.<br>
The experience of, and the activities undertaken by, UN agencies in the<br>
WSIS process—notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP—should continue to be
used to <br>
their fullest extent."<br>
<br>
The square brackets are gone now! They used to be around "and within<br>
the WSIS" (referring to "based on existing practices within the UN
System").<br>
<br>
and new para 35 (though still in brackets): <br>
"<Participation> <--Continuous involvement--> of all
stakeholders in the<br>
policy discussion after Tunis Summit is essential and the modalities of<br>
such participation should be established."<br>
<br>
At least, "participation" is better than "involvement", or
am I getting<br>
this wrong? We should of course ask for "full and effective" to be
added.<br>
<br>
Then, you also have another reference to UNGA 57/270. <br>
<br>
So: The way I see it after having a long discussion with Chantal last<br>
night (and I know I am a natural born optimist):<br>
<br>
It seems like Karklins is trying to react to demands from several<br>
governments to have less mandatory inclusion of observers on the national <br>
and regional level, whcih is where implementation has to take place. This<br>
really is bad for us, but looking at the opposition from <st1:country-region
w:st="on">Brazil</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> and<br>
other towards the MSP and from the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> on the follow-up at all, <br>
understandable from Karklin's perspective.<br>
The problem is: Those fights have to made in the respective countries and<br>
regions anyway, we can't really decide this in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Geneva</st1:place></st1:City> and then think<br>
everything will be fine. (Of course, we still have to fight like hell that <br>
"full and effective" stays in.)<br>
<br>
But in return, the follow-up on the policy level (which is different than<br>
implementation) will now be "on the basis of existing practices within the<br>
UN system and within the WSIS". This is better for us than the previous <br>
draft, where the WSIS reference was in brackets.<br>
<br>
In addition, the references to UNGA 57/270 won't go out anymore, I am<br>
pretty sure. So, what we could push for instead of a new forum is to<br>
mainstream the existing MSP practices from the WSIS into ECOSOC etc. There <br>
are a number of references in the report following 57/270 we can use for<br>
that (the report is available in html at<br>
<<a href="http://www.wsis-si.org/DOCS/updated-report-13may05-N0534415.pdf">http://www.wsis-si.org/DOCS/updated-report-13may05-N0534415.pdf
</a>>).<br>
<br>
>From Chapter VII:<br>
"In recent years, the Economic and Social Council and its functional<br>
commissions have significantly intensified the involvement of civil<br>
society, including non-governmental organizations, foundations, <br>
parliamentarians and local authorities, and the private sector. Perhaps<br>
the most innovative and successful of the Council's multi-stakeholder<br>
initiatives is the Information and Communication Technology Task Force." <br>
<br>
(Well, given the weak standing of the UN ICT TF, I know this is not much.<br>
But we can always refer to the really open discussions and the<br>
participation of CS representatives as real peers. I know in reality it <br>
was a bit different, but officially...).<br>
<br>
In any case, under the current draft, the decision about the follow-up /<br>
implementation structure will be made by Kofi Annan. I saw his press<br>
conference in NYC a few days ago on TV, and he spoke quite nicely about <br>
the importance of involving civil society better and more effective in the<br>
UN system.<br>
<br>
Looking at the big picture: ECOSOC is not the greatest place for us, but I<br>
am not really convinced that it would be better to add new specialized <br>
forums here and there to the standards UN framework. That was the whole<br>
idea of 57/270, and somehow it makes sense to me: Why should we push for a<br>
new playground that is disconnected from the core of the UN, when instead <br>
we have a slight chance to use the WSIS experience for a more meaningful<br>
(and strategically more relevant) opening up of the core UN framework? Of<br>
course, for this you need much more patience and other allies. But if <br>
anything in this direction can be placed in the Operational Part in the<br>
end, it is a clear sign that we have some allies among the governments on<br>
this. If not, we are lost in either case.<br>
<br>
In a way, it is a great chance that the WSIS is the first summit do decide <br>
about its follow-up according to the 57/270 report's recommendations. It<br>
would be much worse if it had been a summit on security policy or the like.<br>
<br>
So, given the fact that none among the governments is enthusiastic about <br>
creating a new forum and dropping the 57/270 references, we should instead<br>
insist on "full and effective and meaningful and whatever"
participation<br>
of CS in the ECOSOC-guided follow-up.<br>
<br>
I totally agree with Parminder on the tactical level: <br>
<br>
> In the circumstances, if the early few days at prepcom 3 show us that<br>
> the new implementation text is going to go through, there isn't really<br>
> much left for CS to associate with this process any further (except for <br>
> IG issues) .<br>
><br>
> CS may want to take a decision at this stage on whether it wants to<br>
> stay in or opt out of the negotiations around the implementation issue.<br>
> The first task that faces the CS representatives who will attend <br>
> prepcom 3 from Monday onwards is to develop a clear CS strategy on this<br>
> issue.<br>
><br>
> Taking a hard stance at this point on this issue, and lobbying with<br>
> some more sympathetic government delegations on it, may still be the <br>
> only chance even if we are seeking a minimal outcome on some<br>
> implementation mechanisms, and some real global policy spaces<br>
> post-WSIS.<br>
<br>
I may sound too moderate in what I wrote above, but those of you who <br>
remember that I facilitated the ad-hoc strategy working group in the first<br>
phase that led to exactly the decision for CS to drop out of the official<br>
drafting circus will know it is not the case. I am only trying to explore <br>
at the moment which avenues are worth exploring and which ones are just a<br>
waste of energy for us.<br>
<br>
We also should discuss how to use our small threat (the "exit"
option) in<br>
the most effective way. This option is normally most effective when you <br>
just threaten to use it. Once you exit, you don't have any impact anymore.<br>
But of course, we must have a clear understanding of what would be<br>
acceptable for us at all and where the line towards unacceptable is.<br>
<br>
Best, Ralf<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Plenary mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Plenary@wsis-cs.org">Plenary@wsis-cs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary">http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>