WSIS Prepcom III, 19-30 September 2005, Geneva

First Plenary Session

19 September, 1000 – 1300 hours

Hall des Assemblees, Palais des Nations

Notes by Rik Panganiban. CONGO

Opening Statement by Secretary General of ITU

Opening Interventions by Tunisia and Switzerland

Amb Karklins, President of the Prepcom, Opening remarks

He noted the paragraph in General Assembly Outcome Document referring to WSIS in the section on “science and technology” (A/60/L.1, para 60). He remarked that this is the last Prepcom.   There will be no Prepcom 3bis.   We have 60 working hours. The status of negotiations is reasonably good.    He listed what the delegates have to accomplish: political chapeau, Chapter 1 on implementation, Chapter 2 on financial mechanisms, Chapter 3 on Internet Governance – need to draft, negotiate and find compromise, and Chapter 4 on the Way Forward.

Adoption of Agenda

Adopted.

Organization of Work of Prepcom III

Charles Geiger clarified the speaking slots for observers.   Chairs of sub-cttees should give time to observers, about 45 minutes every six hours.  

Election of Chairpersons of sub-committees and rapporteur

Amb Masood Khan and Ms. Lyndall Shope-Mafole were elected as chairpersons of Sub-committees of Prepcom III. George Papadopous, Greece, was elected as rapporteur.

Accreditation of Observers

The list of recommended entities for accreditation to the WSIS was introduced.   A subsequent debate began on the question of the accreditation of the NGO Human Rights in China.

USA

Asked for clarification on why Human Rights in China was not accredited.

UK, on behalf of EU

We express concern about Human Rights in China on accreditation as well.

Charles Geiger, WSIS Executive Secretariat

He explained that the ES bound by document “arrangements for accreditation.”   We need to receive a list of contributions and sources, including government sources.   We have received a thick application from Human Rights in China.   Their list of donors includes anonymous donors.   Thus their file is not complete.

USA

Moved that Human Rights in China be accredited.

China

Asked how many entities that put forward applications were not included on the list?

Geiger

Note that they don't have the full list.   In every prepcom there are usually several dozen NGOs that we could not recommend because their applications were not complete.   In Prepcom III, we had at least 50 NGOs who applied and whose files were not complete.

China

Let us not waste time on this.   We are only against those so-called NGOs with dubious governmental links.   Proposed that Prepcom III do not discuss those organizations which are not included on this list.

Canada

The document does not ask for “full disclosure” but only a “list of contributors” which they have provided.

Cuba

We are satisfied with ES explanation.   Let us not waste time on this.

Chair

We have an option of a vote.   This could take an hour.   I will lead informal consultations myself.  

China

We asked procedural question first about whether or not we should re-open the accreditation list.   Instead of informal negotiations, let us take a decision right now.

UK

We agree with chair to enter into informal discussions to save time.

China

This is the first time that a prepcom has considered an organization that is outside the list of accredited entities.   This is a precedent.

Chair

My understanding is that we are talking about one organization only.

China

Let me talk about this organization.   It has done nothing on the promotion of human rights in China.   It should be called “Human Rights in China in the United States.”   It refuses to disclose its contributors.

              We call for procedural vote on whether prepcom has authority to re-open list of accredited organizations.

Chair

We suspend the meeting for five minutes.

[Meeting was suspended at 1200 hours.   Meeting resumed at 1220 hours.]

Chair

The ES does a preliminary screening of applicants. In this instance, the ES recommendation was challenged by a number of delegations. The rules of procedure do not provide exact guidance.  

              China made a procedural motion that we would continue existing practice of not challenging the ES decision.   During consultations, I found that the best way forward would be to proceed with a vote.   A vote on China's procedural motion would mean that if succeeded than we would consider agenda item on accreditation closed. If rejected, we would continue actions on agenda item under discussion.

The ES conducted a roll call vote on this issue.  

Chair

Among 194 countries accredited, 122 were present and voted.   52 in favor, 35 against, 35 abstain.   The motion was accepted.   The chapter on accreditation is closed.

The Plenary meeting will reconvene at 3pm.

Here is a rough count of how the different delegations voted:

WSIS Prepcom III

Afternoon Plenary

19 September 2005

The afternoon plenary session was mostly taken up with reports from the various conferences and consultations that have taken place since Prepcom II.   There was some difficulty with the introduction of the report of the Group of Friends of the Chair, which the Russian delegation wished treated simply as an “input” and not as a new set of draft text to add to the Prepcom II draft texts on implementation and follow-up.  

Report on Activities between Prepcom II and III by ITU Secretary General

Report on WSIS Stocktaking by ITU

Report of Group of Friends of Chair

The Chair introduces text from the Group of Friends of the Chair on paras 10, 11 and 29 as draft text

Russian Federation

We view documents from Prepcom II as also important.   This should be considered at committee level, not here.

Cuba

What happens to contributions from Prepcom II?

Chair

Then let us refer the GFC document to Sub-committee B

Report of Working Group on Internet Governance by Nitin Desai

Reports on regional conferences and   thematic meetings

Organization of Work in Sub-Committees 

Amb Khan, Sub-committee A

We begin with 3 hours of general debate tomorrow, than move on to geneva principles, the WGIG report, and a working definition.   The next cluster is stakeholders, public policy issues, measures to promote development, and a future mechanism.  

Observers will speak toward end of session, starting at 12:15pm.   Each group will get 15 minutes, which they can divide among 3-5 speakers.

Shope-Mafole, Sub-committee B

Regarding the participation by observers, they should express to me their preferences for participation. We can be more flexible, perhaps having them speak at beginning and end of each session.  

We begin with Chapters 1 and 4 tomorrow, than continue on Thursday.   We start the political chapeau on Wednesday.

[The meeting adjourned at 1830 hours.]