|
Informal Consultations on WSIS Implementation Mechanism meet outcome
Informal Consultations on Implementation Mechanism of WSIS Action Plan
ITU Headquarters, ITU Tower, Room C2
2 May 2005 14:00-17:30
After some welcoming remarks, Chairman Yuri G. Grin briefly presented the role of the ITU Council WG on WSIS, mandated to make proposals to the Plenipotentiary Conference on the ITU inputs to the WSIS process. He also asserted that the work of the ITU is strongly rooted in a spirit of multi-stakeholder partnership, gathering 189 member states, but also private companies, academic institutions and some NGOs.
Noting that the WSIS is also closely linked with other multilateral processes, including the Millennium + 5 review and Summit to be held in September 2005, Chairman Grin stated that the ITU WG had to make proposals for implementation after Tunis Phase.
Organisation of the work of the ITU WG on WSIS informal consultation and ITU contribution to WSIS process
Syria thanked the chair for convening this meeting and elaborated on the potential the WG could have to bring proposals of implementation to the WSIS process and in this context asked whether there would be a new GFC meeting. He underscored the importance of involving the ITU council in making contributions in the up-coming meetings of the GFC
Ambassador Janis Karklins, Chairman of WSIS PrepCom said the decision on whether or not a GFC meeting will be convened depends on the quantity of contributions that will be received by the Bureau by 31 May 2005. Besides, having just been in New York and speaking with the UN Deputy Secretary General, he added that for the first time that there is an evolving understanding within the UN that the implementation process and follow-up must be seen as separate processes.
The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) also commended the Chair for inviting to this meeting but disapproved of the way this informal consultation was organised, including the very late invitation sent to NGOs/Civil Society which could only benefit those living in Geneva or nearby. Therefore this meeting could not be called an inclusive consultation. While implementation and follow-up are issues of great significance for civil society, there was a need for more time for consultation and discussion within civil society, and for more structured interactions within the WSIS framework. In particular in view of what just had been said by Ambassador Karklins, CONGO asked for a more structured meeting involving civil society actors before PrepCom-3.
After the support expressed by UNCTAD, the Chairperson took note of this request and together with Mr. Utsumi will bring it to the next WSIS Bureau meeting and propose to organise a formal / informal meeting within WSIS. He also invited CS to participate in the Council WG for the next two days.
The Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors (CCBI) noted that this informal consultation seemed to be an attempt by ITU to take leadership in WSIS implementation and follow-up, whereas such mechanisms had not been decided yet. CCBI also denounced the very short notice of this meeting, which made impossible any consultation to prepare a more coordinated participation.
In the end of the meeting, Mr Utsumi replied to this question about the relations between ITU and NGOs. NGOs can be members of ITU (i.e., the Internet Society), and he even expressed his wish and willingness to see all CS entities involved in WSIS become ITU members. Nevertheless, he added that CS/NGO membership is subject to a voluntary financial contribution.
Swiss proposal for additional Summit documents
Marc Furrer, Head of the Swiss Delegation, presented a proposal, based on the necessity to raise attention of all stakeholders and the media on the concrete progress made since Geneva 2003 and on the added value of the Tunis Phase. Two additional Summit documents, a stocktaking implementation document and a stakeholder commitments document, would be taken note of by the Summit, but not be opened for negotiation.
- The Stocktaking Implementation Report would gather concrete actions taken following the action lines of the Geneva Plan of Action, and provide project analysis of the progress made on all issues. This document will not be an evaluation document of best practices, but rather a stocktaking database of WSIS-related projects.
- The Stakeholder Commitments Paper would take shape as a rolling document up to the Tunis Summit, in which all stakeholders (States, civil society, private entities and international organizations) could announce their projects to be taken after Tunis Phase in accordance with the action lines of the Geneva Plan of Action.
Mr. Charles Geiger, WSIS Executive Secretary, said that the Swiss proposal does not only concern initiative and progress from donator entities. In this document, actions taken at national level can also be included in this Commitments paper. Furthermore, with relation to an intervention by Sweden, Mr. Geiger mentioned that the compilation of these documents was feasible provided that the WSIS ES were given some more staff support. He also proposed that no criteria be established in the addition of projects in this document.
Modalities and Leadership for the implementation and follow-up process to WSIS
Canada recalled that implementation of WSIS commitments would take place at the national level. In this context, international organisations will have a supporting and collaborating role. Canada raised a set of principles to be respected in any follow-up and implementation mechanism, including compatibility with other UN practices in Summit Follow-ups, an inclusive multi-stakeholder approach, and no creation of any costly new institution but necessity to build upon existing international capacities. Because of the cross-cutting aspects of WSIS follow-up and implementation, Canada suggested that the UN is better placed than the ITU for any coordinating role in this respect, since only the UN has a cross-border mandate and common practices covering large aspects of the information society. However, each specialised international agency would be responsible for action lines within its own field of competence. Finland said that an implementation mechanism had to be coordinated by the corresponding UN body.
The ILO supported the USA proposal in document PC-2/DT/2 (rev.2) paragraph 10: In order to assure the sustainability of the WSIS Process after the completion of the Summit, the relevant organs, organizations and bodies of the UN system should incorporate the results of the WSIS in their programmes of work, in accordance with their respective mandates.
The operational work should build upon the innovative, participatory, multi-stakeholder modalities utilized in the WSIS. The Secretary General of the United Nations is further requested to submit an annual report on those follow-up efforts.
USA added to this that each UN agency should endorse the WSIS action lines from their specific competence. Reference should be made to UN Resolution 59/220 and 57/270, on integrated and coordinated follow-up to the outcomes of major UN conferences and summits. Mr Utsumi, as Secretary General of ITU, replied that contrary to WSIS, other Summits had no implementation mechanism, but only drafted follow-up documents. This Summit is unique: the first phase had taken resolutions and the second one is dedicated to implementation.
CCBI supported the multi-stakeholder approach for implementation and follow-up, to be better guaranteed under the responsibility of the UN Secretary-General. CCBI encouraged the adoption of WGIG-like working methods for follow-up fora ensuring an equal partnership for all stakeholders.
CONGO recalled existing proposals (made at PrepCom-2 by the civil society Implementation Caucus: Bertrand de la Chapelle) tabled by civil society, in line with the private sector and Canadian suggestions. In this, CONGO supported a thematic approach for implementation based on Geneva Action Lines, and the creation of multi-stakeholder teams for each action line to foster this implementation, provided that conditions of duration and mandate could offer a good balance between legitimacy and efficiency. International organisations should be deeply involved in this process within their respective mandates, and civil society supports a WGIG-like structure for any coordination body.
Francis Muguet, from ENSTA, said in his personal capacity that a strong follow up mechanism was needed. Otherwise actions taken were going to be lost. He suggested a centralized coordination mechanism but a decentralized implementation. UNCTAD agreed with the necessity to have a multi-stakeholder mechanism. To this end, each actor had to be actively involved in the creation process of this mechanism.
Sweden said that the ITU point of view does not take into account the development perspective for ICT. Concern had to be given on how the ITC can contribute to development.
The USA suggested caution in this discussion on implementation mechanisms. WSIS participants should not separate implementation and follow up and should not elaborate on specific mechanisms.
The Holy Sea representative mentioned that this Summit has a variety of actors. He suggested that there should be another meeting after the Summit that would include the same actors, like in Beijing +5, which could be called the World Survey on the Information Society. This would allow actors to come in a few years to report about the progress made.
Syria opposed UN-SG leadership over the post-Tunis process and to the WGIG working methods. Referring to the mandate of the ITU, the Representative also supported ITU capacity to get a leading role in the WSIS follow-up process at the international decision making level. He also added that in this framework, the participation of civil society and a multi-stakeholder approach would also be preserved since mechanisms within the ITU exist to integrate civil society actors, including current membership and proposed memoranda of understanding to be developed.
Mr Utsumi said that the WSIS had to create an implementation system that would be able to mobilize the stakeholders commitment to the process. He has talked with UNESCO and they agreed that ITU has the capacity to deal with infrastructure and UNESCO with content. In this context, they could take the leadership. Implementation mechanisms need to be decentralized since many actors have to be included in this process. Each thematic group should have its own mechanism but there should be a general coordinator to gather information and report to the UN. UNESCO asserted they would be ready to work and take their part of responsibility on WSIS implementation, depending on available budget.
Participation of LDCs in WSIS Phase II
Answering Djibouti, Mr Utsumi said that there are fellowships for LDCs participation, which modalities will be announced in due time. In addition, he noticed that the Geneva Plan of Action and Declaration of Principle also include a special program for LDCs.
In closing, the Chair asked Tim Kelly to present a short summary of the meeting (annexed) which afterwards the US declared should not have official status.
Notes by
Philippe Dam
Alejandra Mendoza
(WSIS, CONGO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
WSIS and civil society: A backgrounder
We have compiled this backgrounder to give you a complete picture of the WSIS from the perspective of the civil society. Explains academic concepts and issues related to knowledge society, notes activities and concerns of the civil society, and lists actors and organisations involved in the WSIS process as well as links to related Websites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
