[governance] connect the dots

Fri Aug 26 04:22:38 EDT 2005

Hi,

Not sure if everyone here is also on the plenary list, so I thought I'd
pass along the below. News on WSIS implementation is not good, but it is
arguably of a piece with .xxx.  I wouldn't be surprised to see something
similar happen with the forum and other IG issues.

BTW, I spoke yesterday with a government person who said I should not
believe the recent statements that there will not be a PrepCom 3+ in
October and they'll leave everything to a pre-summit crisis session in
Tunis.  Also just bargaining tactics, allegedly.  Maybe best not to book
Tunis flights until after the PrepCom.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:51 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text

Hi Parminder,

Thanks for this, obviously very bad news that as you say requires a strong
and coordinated response by CS.  We should make a statement soon, and at the
prepcom try to connect with governments that are reasonably like-minded on
implementation.

It is also interesting to read this in relation to two other items recently
discussed on plenary---the 12th hour interventions on the .xxx domain, and
the Bush Administration's equally 12th hour effort to rip up the entire
Millenium + 5 document and remove any discussion of the MDGs and development
funding commitments.  You have to wonder what's going on here.   One can
think of a very large number of cases in which last minute, radical changes
in negotiating positions, in the US but elsewhere as well, resulted from
process mismanagement, if not incompetence---e.g. earlier failures to get
agreement among relevant governmental power centers, or overreactions to
late push back from the private sector, legislatures, or other domestic
actors.  While there's undoubtedly been an element of these dynamics in the
recent cases (most notably the .xxx thing, which in the US involved push
back from the religious far right), there's probably more to it than that.
Like the .xxx decision and the Millenium + 5 text, the proposals for WSIS
implementation mechanisms, including multistakeholder teams, have been on
the table for a long time, yet the governments involved never got up and
signaled that this is simply unacceptable to us.  It's not plausible that
the 'need' to stop these decisions just dawned on them.  One suspects that
this is by design, and that the negotiation strategy always has been to run
down the clock, create a crisis, and then leverage that.  Any tiny last
minute concessions can then be presented as acts of great sacrifice to the
spirit of international consensus etc.  This is long been the standard
practice in the WTO.  In any event, it certainly undermines a lot of
previous effort, and any pretense of an open multistakeholder process.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Parminder
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:19 PM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
> implementation mechanisms in the new text
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> The new text proposed by the chair of the GFC for paras 10, 11
> and 29 of the
> operational part of the Tunis document, which deals with the actual
> implementation and follow-up structures, carries some drastic changes. In
> effect, specific implementation structures consisting of multi-stakeholder
> teams around various actions lines, with overall co-ordination by a
> 'well-defined co-ordination body' as suggested in the existing text are
> sought to be completely removed.
>
> See http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1671|0 for
> the new draft.
>
> If this draft is accepted (as it most probably will be, unless strong
> opposition to it is articulated NOW), it would essentially mean NO real
> implementation and follow-up structures for WSIS. This will deny
> the world a
> much needed global Information Society (IS) policy (and implementation)
> forum, at which rapidly arising important IS issues could be taken up.
>
> What is surprising is that the approach taken in the new text, where
> implementation is subsumed under follow-up, is quite contrary to the
> declaration by the Chair of GFC in a recent meeting organised by ITU where
> he affirmed 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". These thoughts are also clearly articulated in the
> document 'food for thought' earlier distributed by the chair of GFC.
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1604|0
>
> I have prepared a comparison of the existing text and the proposed one, on
> the more relevant points, which I am enclosing here.
>
> The last date to give comments on the proposed text is 30th August. While
> there may be differences in views within the CS about which
> agencies should
> play a pivotal role in implementation-follow up, I expect most of us to
> agree on the point that the current drastic changes to the text, before
> substantive discussions are taken up at prepcom 3, are completely
> un-warranted.  These changes are too far reaching for them to come in like
> this, almost surreptitiously, as a proposed revised text when most of the
> submissions to the earlier distributed draft on these points speak about
> strengthening these points rather than removing/replacing them.
> (please see
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1618|0 )
>
> Regards
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 91-80-26654134
> www.ITforChange.net
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance