<DIV>Do you have the names of international negotiation group , spesially I am interested the name of the person from Iran.</DIV>
<DIV>Thank you in advace</DIV>
<DIV>Dina<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR><BR>Dear all,<BR><BR>Today the intersessional negotiation Group went through paras 11-31 in DT26<BR>(Implementation and Follow-up). You can find reports from the morning and<BR>afternoon session below.<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR>Jette Madsen<BR><BR><BR>Intersessional Negotiation Group, Thursday 27 October<BR><BR>At the morning briefing with Amb Karklins, we were today informed that,<BR>following the request from EU yesterday, it would now be possible for all<BR>stakeholders to have their position papers placed in the back of the room.<BR><BR>MORNING SESSION<BR><BR>At the morning session, the delegations went through para 11-20 in DT26. At the<BR>beginning of the meeting, Karklins reminded that only 12 hours remained to<BR>conclude on Political Chapeau, Financing Mechanisms, and Implementation and<BR>Follow-up. He asked the delegations to be as constructive as possible and not<BR>come
in with random suggestions at this late stage. Night sessions will not be<BR>a possibility in respect for the delegates who celebrated Ramadan. Further, he<BR>reminded that they yesterday had agreed that paragraphs from DT9 would stay in<BR>brackets to be reviewed in a second reading.<BR><BR>Para 11, 11a, 11b, 11c were agreed with few, mostly editorial changes. In para<BR>11c, a reference to “older persons” was inserted.<BR><BR>Para 11d (training and education of women):<BR>Russia had strong difficulties with the paragraph. They wanted the reference to<BR>“civil society representatives” deleted and questioned the meaning of<BR>“e-government process”. Either the paragraph should be deleted or made clearer.<BR>The chair asked Russia to work on the text and come with new language by<BR>tomorrow morning.<BR><BR>Iran asked that 7p from DT9 could be brought into the text. On this the chair<BR>replied that 7p repeats para 10 in DT26. After having reconsidered its<BR>proposal, Iran agreed
that it was covered in para 10, but that it was pending<BR>on the outcomes of the negotiations of para 10.<BR><BR>Para 11e<BR>Thailand proposed insertion of “and use of assistive technologies” (agreed).<BR><BR>Para 11f:<BR>Agreed with slight editorial changes<BR><BR>UK asked that old 7d on community volunteering could be included from DT9. US<BR>supported re-incorporation and will lead consultations on how it can be done.<BR><BR>Paras 11g, h, i and j was agreed with few editorial changes.<BR><BR>Paras 11k (educational, scientific and cultural institutions):<BR>US proposed to change “affordable” to “free” and that “and community<BR>connectivity” should be amended after “improve it-literacy”. Cuba and Honduras<BR>opposed the change of “affordable” to “free”. It was decided that US would work<BR>on it and come up with a proposal at three.<BR><BR>Para 11l:<BR>Language was changed so that it is consitent with para 35 in political chapeau:<BR>“local and/or indigenous languages.”<BR>UK(EU)
proposed the amendment “and improving quality e-content”, but Canada<BR>stated that the proposal did not make sense in this paragraph. It was decided<BR>that EU should present a new paragraph on quality e-content at three.<BR>11l was agreed.<BR><BR>Para 11m:<BR>There were some discussions on if the paragraph should only refer to traditional<BR>media as some delegations argued the original purpose of the paragraph had been,<BR>or if the reference to new media should stay. Further, the delegates went into a<BR>lengthy discussion on a comma. In the end, the paragraph was agreed with an<BR>amendment of “inter alia” in front of radio and television.<BR><BR>Para 11n on freedom of press will await the results of consultations lead by<BR>Norway and Iran on para 4-5 in Political Chapeau<BR><BR>Para 11o:<BR>US wanted a reference to “proper disposal of ICT waste”<BR>Egypt argued that as many developing countries do not have the resources to do<BR>this, text about assisting developing countries
in addressing this problem<BR>should be added. Egypt will come up with new language.<BR><BR>Para 11p:<BR>Discussion between Iran and US on the concept of “co-regulatory”. Chair asks the<BR>two to exchange views bilaterally.<BR><BR>New para 11q:<BR>Chile came up with a new proposal:<BR>“Promoting the development of advanced research networks of national, regional<BR>and international levels in order to improve collaboration in science,<BR>technology and higher education.”<BR>Karklins stated that on procedural grounds, he would refuse the proposal, but if<BR>everybody was willing to accept the proposal as it stood, he would allow it to<BR>be included. Objection from one single government would mean deletion.<BR>The proposal was circulated in paper form and in the end of the meeting;<BR>Karklins gave governments 15 seconds to object. As nobody objected, the<BR>proposal was adopted referendum.<BR><BR>Para 12 with subparagraphs (disaster reduction)<BR>Australia stated that it had many
changes to the para and to save time, they<BR>proposed a short meeting between interested delegations. Pakistan on behalf of<BR>Asia wanted to introduce old o+n from DT9. It was decided that Australia and<BR>Pakistan would lead informal consultations and present a result tomorrow.<BR><BR>Para 13 (Child helplines):<BR>EU and US wanted to take out the specific reference to 3 and 4-digits (technical<BR>problem)<BR>Russia found the word “undertake” too strong and proposed it replaced with the<BR>less binding “recommend” or “seek”<BR>India raised the question of who will pay and proposed to insert language on<BR>“mobilise resources”<BR>Canada wanted to educate children on how to use emergency lines also<BR>Chair proposed simplification: “We seek to make available children phone lines<BR>in each country.”<BR>Iran stated that developing countries don’t have the resources and that resource<BR>problem should be accommodated, whereas US had a problem with “we seek to<BR>mobilise resources”,
if we meant the governments. Finally, it was decided that<BR>will lead consulations on this.<BR><BR>Para 14 was agreed without discussion.<BR><BR>Para 15 was not touched as Karklins is consulting governments on this paragraph.<BR>Para 16: agreed<BR><BR>Para 17: Karklins has conducted informal consultations on this also and results<BR>leaved him to believe that the paragraph as drafted will be acceptable. Only El<BR>Salvador had a problem with the paragraph and it was decided that the delegate<BR>from here should consult his capital.<BR>Agreed ad referendum<BR><BR>Para 18-19:<BR>Russia insisted on inserting a reference to “the leading role of governments”.<BR>This was opposed by Canada and USA and the paragraphs were left square<BR>bracketed.<BR><BR>Para 20:<BR>South Africa wanted “framework” changed to “mechanism” and was supported on this<BR>by Iran, Brazil and Cuba (the latter arguing that the term already had been used<BR>in para 61 in Geneva Declaration of Principles) whereas
Canada opposed. It was<BR>decided to move on and leave the two possibilities in brackets as the<BR>discussion reflected more substantive differences.<BR><BR><BR>AFTERNOON SESSION:<BR><BR>In the afternoon, the negotiations group came to the more contentious paragraphs<BR>on international implementation. However, the session started with presentation<BR>of new text that had been drafted on community volunteering, quality e-content<BR>and children helplines<BR><BR>New para 11r: “Promoting volunteering service at the community level to help<BR>maximize the developmental impact of ICTs.” (agreed)<BR><BR>New para 11s: “Strengthening the creation of quality e-content and innovative<BR>applications at national, regional and international level.” The EU proposal<BR>did not gain support and the EU was asked to reconsider its proposal.<BR><BR>New para 13: “We seek to make available child help lines in all countries and to<BR>mobilise appropriate resources”<BR>UK expressed surprise that the
delegations could not at least agree on<BR>freephone, international standards and all phones in principle. Karklins will<BR>continue consultations.<BR><BR>Then they continued from para 21 (implementation at the national level).<BR>Cuba proposed replacement of framework with mechanism. Both were kept in<BR>brackets and the paragraph “agreed conditionally”, meaning that the final<BR>decision on the terminology would depend on the rest of the document.<BR><BR>Then the negotiations moved back to new paras 10a and 10b (newest 6bis and 9B<BR>that yesterday was included from DT9 on a request from G77):<BR><BR>Para10a: “International and regional organizations should assess and report<BR>regularly on universal accessibility of nations to ICTs, with the aim of<BR>creating equitable opportunities for the growth of ICT sectors of developing<BR>countries.”<BR>Was agreed as it stands in 28c in Geneva Plan of Action.<BR><BR>Para 10b: “Appropriate indicators and benchmarking, including
community<BR>connectivity indicators, should clarify the magnitude of the digital divide, in<BR>both its domestic and international dimensions, and keep it under regular<BR>assessment, and tracking global progress in the use of ICTs to achieve<BR>internationally agreed development goals, including those of the Millennium<BR>Declaration.”<BR>Australia proposed insertion of a sentence in the end: “The development of these<BR>should take place in a collaborative, cost-effective and non-duplicative<BR>fashion.”<BR>The paragraph will be revisited in the next reading.<BR><BR>Para 22 was agreed without major changes.<BR><BR>Para 23:<BR>Canada proposed a reference to res. 57/270B in the chapeau to the paragraph.<BR><BR>Para 24 (Intergovernmental implementation and follow-up)<BR>Iran proposed a new amendment in the end of para 24:<BR>“In this regard, bearing in mind paras 11 and 12 of UN Res. 270B, request the UN<BR>Secretary General to establish within the Chief Executive Board (CEB), a
UN<BR>Group on Information Society (UNGIS), chaired by ITU in collaboration with<BR>UNESCO and UNDP, with the mandate to facilitate the implementation, evaluation<BR>and follow-up of WSIS outcomes and to report to the coordination segment of<BR>ECOSOC, for further follow up through functional commission on science and<BR>technology.”<BR><BR>The delegations seemed to like the proposal, although some of them said they<BR>would have to read it more carefully.<BR><BR>EU made another proposal: “The systemwide organisation of implementation<BR>activities should follow res. 270 para 11 and 12. We therefore invite all<BR>international organisation the relevance of their activities… Request Secretary<BR>General to submit a report by July 2006 that includes concrete proposals on<BR>coordination as part of annual report to ECOSOC.” (quotation is incomplete)<BR>The proposal could substitute language both in 26 and 24.<BR><BR>Chile asked for flexibilty for Secretary General to decide which
institutions,<BR>as it might be others than UNESCO, UNDP and ITU and proposed the Commission on<BR>Science and Technology as the coordinating body. SG should submit an annual<BR>report on implementation to the ECOSOC.<BR><BR>Egypt would preferred reporting to UN assembly “to widen the scope” and stated<BR>that it maybe will come up with language tomorrow.<BR><BR>Para 27 (Multistakeholder implementation):<BR>The African group wanted to delete the paragraph as they found the reference to<BR>both “international” and “bottom-up” inconsistent. However, they wanted to keep<BR>the Annex that is referred to in para 27. Brazil, El Salvador, Cuba, Iran and<BR>Japan wanted to keep both para 27 and the Annex.<BR><BR>On the other side, Canada, Australia and US wanted to delete the Annex and the<BR>reference to moderation/facilitation by UN agencies in the end of para 27.<BR>UK (EU) would also like to delete the annex and proposed a merging of 27 and 29:<BR>“Multistakeholder implementation should
be bottom-up. Where appropriate it<BR>should be carried out along the action lines and themes of the Plan of Action<BR>and facilitated by UN agencies. The experience of, and activities undertaken by<BR>UN agencies in the WSIS process – notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP – should continue<BR>to be used to their fullest extent. It should not require the creation of any<BR>new operation bodies.<BR><BR>Chair proposed that the delegations would meet in the Canadian mission tomorrow<BR>morning for informal discussions on Annex + paras 27 and 29.<BR><BR>Para 28 (indicators):<BR>US and Australia proposed deletion.<BR>Honduras (G77) did not wanted complete deletion – language should be<BR>incorporated in 31.<BR>Chile proposed to change the structure of the text and place paras 31-34 before<BR>para 20.<BR><BR>Para 29<BR>Australia and Canada expressed interest in the EU proposal (see above).<BR><BR>Russia propose amendment to para 29: “these agencies should play the leading<BR>managerial role in
organizing activities along action lines as mentioned in the<BR>Annex.”<BR><BR>In relation to the discussions on para 29, Canada expressed that it was<BR>increasingly concerned that the governments were discussing multistakeholder<BR>implementation without the other stakeholders. In consequence, they should not<BR>take any decisions on multistakeholder implementation before PrepCom-3, where<BR>stakeholders can express their opinions.<BR>Chair answered that he met with stakeholders every morning and that papers were<BR>available in the back of the room as a reminder of stakeholder positions.<BR><BR>Para. 30:<BR>EU proposes to move the paragraph higher up as it sets the premise for creating<BR>the modalities of multistakeholder activities.<BR><BR>Chile asked that its proposal on the Commission on Science and Technology could<BR>be inserted in the text. Karklins replied that he believed the Chilean proposal<BR>in part already was covered in the Iranian proposal<BR><BR>Para 31:<BR>Ghana
wants to change “welcome” to “note” in front of “the launch of the Digital<BR>Opportunity Index.” Canada object to this – either we welcome all or do not<BR>mention any of tehm<BR>Honduras (G77) propose inclusion of elements from para 28 included in para 31.<BR>Karklins replied that it might be relevant to have one paragraph on measuring<BR>icts and one on digital opportunity index. He will try to propose text that<BR>takes this into account tomorrow morning.<BR>Iran would like a reference to UN statistical commission.<BR><BR>Tomorrow morning, the session will start with outstanding issues in political<BR>chapeau and chapter 2, and then the negotiation group will move on to<BR>implementation and follow-up.<BR><BR>Jette Madsen<BR>CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat<BR>11, Avenue de la Paix<BR>CH-1202 Geneva<BR>Tel: +41 22 301 1000<BR>Fax: +41 22 301 2000<BR>E-mail: wsis@ngocongo.org<BR>Website: www.ngocongo.org<BR><BR>The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association
that<BR>facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and<BR>decisions.Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of<BR>NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on<BR>issues of global concern. For more information see our website at<BR>www.ngocongo.org<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Plenary mailing list<BR>Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>Dina Hovakmian</DIV>
<DIV>Tel:098 21 88053586</DIV>
<DIV>Fax:098 21 88031879</DIV>
<DIV>0912 119 7840--mobile</DIV>
<DIV>E-mail: <A href="mailto:dina_hov@yahoo.com">dina_hov@yahoo.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV><p>
<hr size=1> <a href="http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTFqODRtdXQ4BF9TAzMyOTc1MDIEX3MDOTY2ODgxNjkEcG9zAzEEc2VjA21haWwtZm9vdGVyBHNsawNmYw--/SIG=110oav78o/**http%3a//farechase.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.</a>