Summary by Chantal Peyer
Pain pour le prochain - Bread for all
Secrétariat romand
Av. du Grammont 9 - 1007 Lausanne
Tél. : 021 / 614 77 17
Fax : 021 / 6 175 175
www.ppp.ch

Group of friends of the chair - meeting of 6th September, 2005 (10:00 - 12:30)

Summary
 
1. Introduction and explanations by Ambassador Karklins
Ambassador Karklin explained the rationnal which is behind the new draft of paras 10, 11 and 20 of the operationnal document.
 
a. Definition of follow-up and implementation
The term follow-up refers to the complete document and to all the measures that will be taken after the second phase of WSIS (see new §11). It is composed of three aspects:
- implementation: concrete measures and actions
- evaluation: establishement of precise and internationally agreed statistics, reports and so on
- policy debate: process to analyze achievements and results, discussion on how policies should be reviewed
 
Those three components of the follow-up process have to be achieved on the three levels: national, regional and international. And multi-stakeholder participation is important on the three levels.
 
b. About implementation
The concept for implementation on the international level has been modified and this has motivated strong criticism by civil society organisations. But ambassador Karklin stated that § 14b actually “allows a much more flexible implementation of the action plan by UN-Agencies” and believes that this implementation will create a strong dynamism among UN-Agencies for new activities. He also stated that  general coordination of the UN-Agencies has to rely upon the decision of the UN secretary-general (§ 14e), because he “knows the UN-house” and will be able to see clearly what measure need to be taken to coordinate this house. “Duplication has to be avoided”, Ambassador Karklins continued, to justify why a general coordination body is not necessary.
 
c. About evaluation and policy debate
Evaluation and policy debate should be done in the framework of the usual UN-follow-up processes, according to UNGA resolution 57/270. According to ambassador Karklins, civil society and other organisations should not fear that the topic of the information society disappears from the international agenda after Tunis, because of the link between the MDG’s Summit and the WSIS Summit[1]. The mention of WSIS in the MDG’s documents means, for Karklin, that the topic of ICTs for development will remain on the agenda at least until 2015.
 
§34 Mentions the necessity to continue a multi-stakeholder policy discussion after Tunis. This sentence means that another forum than the UN general Assembly is needed, so that non-governemental actors can participate in this policy debate. The global alliance could be this forum, but it is only one possibility among others, as the global alliance does not find much support for the moment..
 
2. Next steps of the process
For the next steps of the process, there are two scenarios:
a. Scenario 1:
The new draft version of the GFC is accepted at the beginning of the prepcom3, by all governements.
Then the process is:
- tuesday 20th september, in the sub-committee, first lecture of the draft with all the governements. Inputs and comments. This sub-committee will be open to all stakeholders (if I did understand right).
- wednesday – thursday: a small drafting group will integrate the comments of the 20th september session. This will replace all former versions.
- End of first week or beginning of second: sub-committee reading and work on the new version.
 
b. Scenario 2:
The new draft version of the GFC is refused at the beginning of the prepcom3 and works starts again on the prepcom2 version.
 
3. Impressions....
a. General impression
The meeting was supposed to last 3 hours, but it was finished after less than 2 and a half hours. Generally speeking not many governement representatives attended. But what was more striking is that the governements who do oppose strong follow-up mechanisms did not take the floor and did not express their opinion. The governements which took the floor were: Brazil, Russia, Egypt, canada, Cuba, England (on behalf of the EU).
 
b. Issues which came out of the discussion
The question of an international coordination mechanism clearly appears like the question on which there is no consensus among governements.
 
- Brazil expressed a very strong statement saying that they do understand that Ambassador Karklins is trying to find a minimum consensus, but that their aim at prepcom3 is to go “further” than this minimum consensus. Brazil thinks that in §14 (on international implementation), one element is still missing: a general coordination. “If the governements continue to do what they have always done, then what was the point of WSIS? What are the results of three years of hard work?”, the delegate asked. The brazilian delegation has no fixed opinion yet on what should be the mechanism to coordinate the work of UN-Agencies, but it believes that such a mechanisms is needed and that clear “guidance” has to be given to the general secretary of the UN. 
 
- on the opposite side, there is the position of the american delegation, apparently supported by Japan and some other governements, which clearly opposes any international coordination mechanism and want §33 and 34 to be removed. Certain go as far as saying that they oppose any mention of follow-up.
 
Ambassador Karklins on his side is very worried that the governements might refuse the new draft at the beginning of prepcom3 and tried to convince he audience of the impact/potential of the new proposal
- he tried to convince Brazil and civil society that the new version will allow more flexible initiatives by the UN-agencies and that no decision has to be taken at WSIS for a general coordination mechanism.
- in an undirect way, he gave the message that the new draft was a minumum, but realistic consensus, given the different position of the governements
- he was trying to show that in the general new framework proposed the following points could be worked on: § 14c: “coordination of multi-stakeholder initiatives” and §34 “continuous involvement of all stakholders”: could be formulated in a more precise manner.
 
4. Civil society inputs
- input from the youth caucus (Philipp Damm)
- CSDPTT (Jean-Louis Fullsack)
- Informal coalition on financing (Chantal Peyer)
- Francis Muguet
- Bertrand de la Chapelle
 
Most of the statements will be send to the plenary list.
 
 

[1]Section 38 of the outcome document of the MDG Summit (or High-Level Plenary Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly) states, in the 5th august version, that governements will “build a people-centred and inclusive information society so as to bridge the digital divide and put the potential of ICTs at the service of development and address new challenges of information society by implementing the outcomes of the Geneva phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and by ensuring the success of the second phase of the WSIS to be held in Tunis in November 2005.” , see http://www.un.org/ga/59/hl60_plenarymeeting.html

 

Technorati Tags: , ,