Introduction of the purpose of today’s meeting by Amb. Karklins
Chairman Karklins would like to see the GFC endorse the proposed elements contained in the draft input to PrepCom-3 for paras 10, 11 and 29 of the operational document, revised with government comments. In addition, he submitted to the GFC a compilation of other stakeholder comments, and asked GFC Members to consider their potential inclusion in the text before tomorrow’s informal consultation.

Provided that the GFC would arrive to a common agreement on that text, this proposal could be sent to PrepCom-3 as a GFC contribution for a possible basis for negotiations. If accepted by PrepCom-3, it would go through a first reading of the document, together with the outcome of the first reading during PrepCom-2. The WSIS ES would compile a consolidate document with the on-site additional comments during PrepCom-3.

Round of general comments on the revised draft input
Some delegations (USA, UK, El Salvador) strongly welcomed the new version of the document as an improved basis for negotiation at PC-3. However the USA mentioned that it did not see WSIS as a sustained process over time, regretting the risk that the draft paras 33-34 would create a new mechanism for policy debate, which would be rejected by the USA. The UK, on behalf of the EU, supported the document and added that more precisions should be brought to regional implementation, to multi-stakeholder coordination, and to evaluation devices.
Switzerland emphasized the reference to the MDGs and ICT 4 Development in the WSIS implementation and follow-up, and stressed the necessary multi-stakeholder aspect to be underlined at all levels. Canada approved of the informal mechanism put forward by this draft, in line with UN GA Res. 57/270.

On the contrary, Brazil, in a strong statement, regretted that there is nor coordination mechanism neither any moderator in that new proposal. Each agency “could” facilitate activities, but the WSIS outcome must decide something to link the respective works of each international institution. More language is needed in that document if Member States do not want to give the impression that the GFC did not envisage any kind of coordination and moderation among international agencies. Tunisia requested an effective implementation mechanism involving stakeholders, as well as a better balance between the national, regional and international levels for implementation. Cuba strongly called for the establishment of implementation teams for each action line agreed in Geneva, an improved mechanism for international cooperation at the international level, as well as a stronger language on implementation mechanism at the regional level. Senegal also underlined the need to have precise implementation mechanisms if we still have the ambition to build a sustainable information society, and in order to avoid the extinction of the multi-stakeholder process we launched with WSIS. Pakistan in a quite moderated statement highlighted the risk of sound difficulties for governing bodies to efficiently coordinate among themselves in the current proposed mechanism.

Amb. Karklins reminded that follow-up in that new draft is understood as containing: 1- implementation; 2- evaluation; 3- policy debate – which should be applied to the national, regional and international levels.

He also answered to Brazil and Cuba that this draft provides much more flexibility than before for all international organisations involved in WSIS implementation. He referred to the ITU Council decision which gave ITU the mandate and the funding for WSIS implementation activities. He highlighted that these draft paras provided specific provisions on generic coordination mechanisms (UN interagency coordination mechanism at § 14-e and coordination of multi-stakeholder implementation activities at § 14-c), to be further discussed and defined during PrepCom-3 negotiations. Multi-stakeholder teams for each action line are not anymore in this document because this proposal did not enjoy enough support from many delegations.

Procedural discussion about the purpose of this 7th GFC meeting
In a very long discussion, many delegations wondered whether the stakeholders’ comment should be discussed today, since CS and the private sector would intervene the day after, and whether we are here dealing with a negotiation process. They also raised the status of the new draft (GFC recommendation or Chairman’s draft?), as well as the status of previous comments compiled in DT6/Rev.2 during PrepCom-2. Greece specifically mentioned that other stakeholders should take entirely part in this discussion on implementation and follow-up since this issue was of direct concern to them.

Chairman Karklins reminded the mandate of the GFC as decided in PrepCom-2 is to negotiate proposals to PrepCom-3, reflecting comments and concerns of all participants and giving the possibility to other stakeholders to defend their positions. The decision was then taken to leave the document as it is until the open informal consultation with all stakeholders, in order to avoid any duplication in the consideration of CS and private sector concerns.

Particular substantial comments
After that above-mentioned discussion, the USA voiced some specific concerns, reminding that the US government is against the creation of any new organ, and “does not see WSIS to be sustained over time”. The US delegation would like to:
• delete reference to “Continuous involvement” (§ 34),
• see a stronger reference to Resolution 57/270 in § 14-b,
• avoid any mention to specific initiative to the exclusion of others,
• The US delegation lastly stressed the risk of a new policy debate mechanism contained in paras 33 and 34.

Switzerland strongly responded that the multi-stakeholder process must be continued after Tunis in implementation and follow-up so that § 33 and 34 must be maintained. El Salvador also stressed the need to achieve the goals already decided and support the current language. The UK lastly raised concerns on the need to clarify and improve the framework for the regional implementation mechanism and for a better multi-stakeholder coordination system.


In the end of the meeting, President Karklins stated that tomorrow’s meeting should clarify the acceptance of the shift from the implementation teams to the current draft framework by other stakeholders. Considering the lack of agreement on whether this draft would be endorsed or not by the GFC, he announced that the 8th GFC meeting will take place on Wednesday morning. He called GFC members to find a conceptual understanding on the need for implementation, before further clarifying the details during PrepCom-3.


Notes taken by Philippe Dam
CSB Secretariat

Technorati Tags: ,