World Summit on the Information Society
Prepcom III
Minutes from Sub-Committee B on Sept 28, 2005 (morning session)
Established for the CS Working Group on Followup
Report by Bertrand de la Chapelle
( Note : these are unedited minutes. The total accuracy of quotes is not fully guaranteed and this document is only the best effort of its author. For any comments or corrections, contact bdelachapelle@gmail.com)
Paragraph 17
CANADA : I would have a major problem with inserting subsidiarity.
Australia : Federal states might have a problem with this notion
Holy See : must put something somewhere that says each level has its particular responsibilitites.
USA : We establish a process, not a mechanism
Australia : we are talking about a process and not a mechanism
Iran : I do support the wording of mechanism proposed by Uruguay. Resolution 270 B there is a reference to mechanisms in para 16 and several others. In the same resolution, there is paragraph 32 that stresses “the need to apply …… evaluate progress in conference goals”, this has to be done through a mechanism.
Chair : we are not yet at that stage. The word “mechanism” is not banned from that resolution.
Cuba : I fear that after the statement made by Iran, I have not much to say. Cuba supports the word mechanism.
Egypt : actors have a weak commitment to implementation. Insist on keeping mechanism
US : by adding the word mechanism here, we are establishing a new mechanism. We believe this should be established through 57/270 B
Conclusion :
• [mechanism/process] in square brackets
• [respecting the principle of subsidiarity]
• c) review, policy debate and follow-up
Tunisia : Follow-up is ………???
Chair : please allow me to progress, at the necessary pace;
Paragraph 18
Speaker unknown : We suggest the inclusion of the word followup after implementation and deletion of text in []
US : we believe the enabling environment is crucial and ask for the square brackets to be kept.
UK : we'd prefer not a mention of follow-up. We think it is a next chapter and want to keep it separate.
Chair : it is true but would you have a major problem with implementation and follow-up framework ?
Iran : no problem on removing the brackets on enabling environments if
Chair : does Uruguay insist on having followup kept here, knowing it is in the next chapter.
Uruguay : we would prefer to keep it
New-Zealand : an implementation framework works, less a follow-up framework. I support UK
Equador : support the position of Uruguay. We need follow-up and implementation. We need implementation and follow-up at the national level
18 a)
Russia : minor remark; it concerns the national e-strategies; we would like to have same language as in paragraph 2 (use the penultimate line of paragraph 2)
Chair : tank you for reminding us on that
18 b) , c) no comments
18 d) Square bracket suppressed
19 a) no comments
19 b)
El Salvador : should organise rather than may organize. If it is at the request of member states, they should have to do it.
Brazil : we agree with 19 b) with the comment of El Salvador
We would like to propose “as well as assist member states with technical and relevant information for the development of regional strategies and the implementation of the outcomes of regional conferences”.
Dominican Republic : Clarification : we restrict these activities to conferences; it should be activities. And we support the suggestion by Brazil.
Australia : maintain may instead of should. Decision should be taken at the level of the institutions by the different governements
Mexico : support for the proposal by Brazil.
Canada : support reverting to ”may”. The “appropriate frequency” can only be decided as implementation progresses.
Saudi Arabia : in this paragraph, we are not happy to see regional conferences. There are many restrictions here. The holding of conferences is not an objective as such. We support the proposal of Brazil.
Chile : we would also like to support the Brazilian proposal
Chair :
• can we keep “may” Adopted
• can we take activities with conferences Adopted
• can we add the last Brazilian comment
19 c)
Russia : delete necessary; essential is closer to what we want
Azerbaidjan : Comment at a later stage
Chair : essential is, at least closer to what we have in mind. Can we go to “essential” ? Adopted
Paragraph 20
20 a)
Speaker unknown : We remove the [] around bearing in mind …. Enabling environment”
Equador : clarify that it is the same definition of “enabling environment” as in paragraph 18 ? OK to keep it.
Uruguay : wants followup to be added and the insertion of ……..
20 b) Seems to be OK ????
20 c)
Russia : seems to us that 20c) should be examined in parallel with 20 f) and par 22. Indeed, if in b) we have something that mentions 57/270, we should go beyond that. Since we already have a proposal with respect to UNESCO, W>e believe the decisions have to be implemented immediately. There is a need to clearly define how we are going to implement the decisions of the summit. We need to examine these different paragraphs together (20 c), f) and 22).
Chair : this is true. We shelve it a little bit. And there was also …..
20 e)
Norway : The paragraph is getting more complex. We should focus on the main objective which is to streamline the implementation in the existing UN system. We are hesitant to single out any particular agency.
We should focus on the system-wide implementation mechanism. We will have specific proposals later, but not at that time.
Iran : two proposals “in concordance with sub-paragraph a) above” and add ?????
UK : rephrase it slightly “The establishment of new multi-stakeholder partnerships aimed at Bridging the Digital Divide should be and supported. In this respect we welcome the ITU-led initiative “Connect the World”.
US : we would like to support the UK but share Norway's comment on non singling out a specific agency. So we suggest to keep only the first sentence of UK.
Croatia : would like to express our support for the UK rewording.
Summary :
• rewording from the EU, can we support it ? Yes Adopted.
• At the end of the Document, we tried to regroup all specific initiatives. This paragraph could be moved in that section.
Saudi Arabia : can The UK re-read the amendment ?
Chair : UK rewording is adopted.
20 c), e) and 22
Chair : this is the section I have waited so long to come to.
Uganda : the member states who proposed this could propose a revised text, rather than having us redraft.
Chair : we need a sense of what the different proposals are.
Venezuela : Comment on 20c) satisfactory with the existing addition; but we would like to add after “the leading role of ITU” also add “ECOSOC” and 22;
UK : The European Union is fully committed to WSIS implementation and follow-up . It is for each agency to decide. It is up to the secretary general to establish the coordination mechanisms among agencies through the CEB
We stress the importance of the timely and effective . to incorporate in their program of work the outcome of WSIS. We ask the UN SG, in his capacity of head of the CEB to address the possibility of inter-agency co-ordination by Action Lines.
US : we associate with the UK statement. Resolution 57/270 B deals with all needed We oppose in paragraph 20 c) the singling out of ITU, Unesco and UNDP. The implementation should be system-wide.
New Zealand : associate with the statement by the UK. Paragraph 22 should be deleted if UK's proposal is accepted.
Salvador : in connexion with this paragraph, we believe the text proposed by the Group of Friends of the Chair was a good basis. We listened to the UK Coordination is necessary and cannot be left to the UN Secretary General alone. We need a deadline so that all we have agreed upon is not mere wishes.
Saudi Arabia : no text. We should talk about implementation and follow-up. We need to be precise. Those organizations We propose to press the following point : if we do not have a mechanism for follow-up, we will miss a historic opportunity. We need a body or a person to make this coordination. We cannot leave that in the void. We believe the ITU is the agency which is the best equipped to be the coordinator. Its constitution will be amended. It could include NGOs. We need a pargraph 22 stting this.
Russia : We wish to support the statement made by the preceding two speakers. We also believe that we should not leave the decision of adoption of mechanisms to the Secretary General of the UN. We believe we have here a sufficient number of experts who can decide who and how the different aciotn ine can be implemented. We believe Paragraph 22 could be somewhat rewritten to take into account paragraph 20 c), meaning including ITU, in cooperation with other agencies. We need to say who is going to de what, based on decisions taken by UN agencies.
Cuba : associates itself with Saudi Arabia and Russia. We think this is the most important point and would like to stress what Saudi Arabia underlined. If it was to just do things as usual, there would have been no need to get this second phase. ………. Study groups that can assist them in implementing the outcomes of the Summit.
Ghana (on behalf of the African Group) : 20 c) and 22 are very dear to Africa. We note if you go to 20 f) where we propose the Global Alliance on ICT and Development. It was actually a request of this open and multi-stakeholder platform would ensure the continuity after the Summit and the UN ICT Task Force. Policy dialogue could help developing countries and ensure effective articulation with the Millenium process. We hope that after the Summit, the Secretary General will act expeditiously to establish that sort of mechanism.
Canada : it seems to me if I understand it well that the UK proposal could bring us all what we need. There is a process reconfirmed We are not talking about freezing the implementation into one single agency, but want all agencies to get involved in the implementation. We believe not a single agency can have the mandate to coordinate all activities. Let's see what the UN SG comes up with after his
Iran : we see the benefit of an integrated and coordinated follow-up to UN Summits. It is our common wisdom. We see in such a scenario, each agency will go decide on its own how it integrates WSIS outcomes. But we need a central coordination mechanism, and the guidance could not come from the CEB but from us. At the same time, I see the formulation of our objectives : digital gap, development and inclusive information society. What is the comparative advantage of agencies on each issues : ITU for digital Gap, and UNDP for development. UNDG (?) is hosted and [] by UNDP. A coordinated follow-up could be organized under the guidance of these bodies.
Croatia : going back to 20 c). propose the first line to be replaced by “the system-wide coordination of implementation activities should follow procedures set in Resolution 57/270 B, in particular paragraph 7 and 12 (confirm numbers).
Brazil : we are not in favour of a heavy mechanism. But when I se paragraphs 20 c), f) and 22, I do not see how we could go further in making the implementation architecture thinner. IN c) we just recall the expertise of some entities. In f) we just establish the need for coordination. And 22 just mentions ITU as the coordinator. This is the thinnest you can go.
Azerbaijan : we support Saudi We want a strong mechanism. This group of people is very well positioned to make a recommendation to the Heads of State or the UN GA on such a mechanism. This is the best group to do that. We are not ready to point out a specific organization, but will want
Japan : we believe the original vision of WSIS was to forge a common vision and address the digital divide. Phase one
We would like to see 20 c) as it stands with removing all square brackets.
Norway : we need to streamline these paragraphs for us but also for the UN. We should use 57/270 as a point of departure. The ECOSOC is the coordinating body of the United Nations. We need a coordinated and system-wide mechanism of coordination. We need to use the existing mechanisms. The delegate of Iran mentioned UN Development Group (such a
We suggest : “The modalities ….among UN Agencies, should be established on the basis of existing practices within the UN system”.
Ensuring follow-up can be achieved by requesting the Secretary General to submit an annual report to the UN GA (or ECOSOC ?)
Chair : how do we invigorate implementation processes ?
We recognize that some things are critical such as infrastructure. So even if UNctad, Wipo, WTO and others may have a role; but clearly, in that respect ITU has a special role. How do we, in tht process, do we recognize that specificity. Similarly for Unesco in questions of content. I studied carefully the resolution 57/270 and paragraph 45 invites … and the “relevant follow-up mechanisms” “ to do something. What are these relevant mechanisms ?
We do have other paragraphs to deal with. We are moving in the direction of a ad hoc group. I think all what we want can be achieved within the context of resolution 57/270. this may be the most important element of our outcome and also of the WSIS in Tunis.
In the afternoon, I suggest we move forward with the other paragraphs and
Chile : On coordination of UN Agencies. We agree with having this in line with 57/270 B. We prefer not to identify specific agencies. We are flexible if others see the need. We see that there is a clear mandate. We also see the need for a role for the stakeholders. This could be of monitoring. This matter can be resolved within 57/270, with its paragraph 25 for instance, to monitor what will happen after the summit. We are in favour of a role for ECOSOC.
Switzerland (?)
Australia : support Canada, Some say : Yes we have 57/270 B but we don't trust the system. If that is the case we have to come back to our own resolution and work within the agencies
We opted for the terminology of Action Lines for a reason. General areas of Action. We did not want to get in the detail. This is the same for blueprints that are presented today. Appointing one agency for a given Action Line will not resolve the coordination problem, because it will only lead only to further negotiations.
UK : good suggestion from Croatia (above). The secretary general is requested to report on a system-wide coordination mechanism (or on system-wide implementation ?) by
Nigeria : Ghana has outlined our position. There should be an integrated and coordinated follow-up approach. But sometimes there are duplications. There should be a clear mandate to a specific body . We do not want this summit to disappear because there has not been enough
Dominican Republic : support for Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Ghana, Russia ….. We need a framework enabling all participants to get involved. We support keeping paragraph 20 c). we are building on existing structures, not creating any new organization.
Saudi Arabia : I don't want to add more arguments to the ones of Nigeria. We need to be pragmatic. Brazil has already stated this is the thinnest structure possible. ……….
Chair : what are we going to call this Working Group / Ad Hoc Group ? We have to check translation. There has been a proposal by Saudi Arabia fr Russia to chair the Ad Hoc Group. No opposition ?
UK proposes that either the Chair herself chairs that group or a country that has not intervened yet .
Chair : somebody that has not made an input and is passionate about
Canada : we support the proposal that you chair this group. It is probably better not to have somebody that feels passionate about the issue that chairs the group.
Chair : what about a co-chairing with Saudi Arabia and EU ?
US : Chile could be the Chair
UK : we would prefer somebody not passionate about this.
Saudi Arabia : there is nobody in there that has no strong position on that issue. Can we thank Chile for agreeing ?
Chile : we intend to submit a proposal and would prefer to do it from our seat. Can you chair this ad hoc group ?
Chair : all those who have input on that, please give them to the secretariat. By end of day today. When we come back, I am hopeful we will be starting the discussion of the part on financial mechanisms.
Chair : See you at 15 in room 20