[governance] APC statement to CSTD Opening Session
karen banks
karenb at gn.apc.org
Mon May 21 13:10:30 EDT 2007
hi folks
A copy of the statement anriette made to the CSTD opening session
this morning..
karen
The Association for Progressive Communication's input at the opening
of the Tenth Session of the Commission for Science and Technology for
Development
21 May 2007
Presented by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director
The Commission for Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) has
an important role in system-wide follow-up to the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS). We support the concept of a multi-year
programme that is implemented with the inclusion of multiple-stakeholders.
Coordination of WSIS follow which includes an enormous range of
social and economic issues is not a trivial task and we want to urge
the CSTD to consider the following suggestions:
On stakeholder participation:
We realise we are stating the obvious, but we want to remind those
gathered here that meaningful inclusion of voices of the people most
impacted by the digital divide requires more than multi-stakeholder
panels in Geneva or New York. ECOSOC's Resolution 2006/46 provides a
basis for the development of a multi-stakeholder approach to WSIS
follow-up. But, to build on this effectively, the CSTD needs to:
- establish mechanisms for the inclusion of the perspectives of
business and civil society in determining its programme of work, its
deliberations and in the drafting of the recommendations that it
submits to ECOSOC;
- undertake efforts to ensure that multi-stakeholder participation is
integrated in WSIS follow up and implementation at the level of
coordination of action lines, at the level of regional UN commissions
and implementing of regional action plans, and at national level.
How can this be done?
APC proposes that at the very least a multi-stakeholder advisory
group is established to assist the CSTD chair and secretariat in
designing its work programme, CSTD, and to help prepare for the
annual and inter-sessional meetings on information society issues.
The CSTD already benefits from inputs from thematic boards such as
the Gender Advisory Board. The multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG)
that assisted the Internet Governance Forum secretariat in preparing
for its first meeting in Athens in 2006 also serves as a useful precedent.
Other useful means of enhancing participation are devices such as
online consultations (such as the one convened by the GAID in
preparation for this week's meetings), round tables, the IGF's use of
online tools to facilitate remote participation in face to face
meetings, or one day thematic forums such as those being proposed by BASIS.
We also want to emphasise that civil society and business are
diverse, and this diversity needs to be considered by mechanisms for
participation.
On the CSTD's programme of work:
APC supports the 5 proposed thematic areas to frame the CSTS's
programme of work. APC submits the following comments for consideration:
Prioritisation: The WSIS covered a very wide range of issues relevant
to building a people-centred information society. APC is concerned
that if a long list of activities, issues, and recommendations are
presented to ECOSOC it is less likely that governments will pick up on them.
APC proposes that in addition the CSTD undertakes to work with UN
agencies and other stakeholders involved in WSIS implementation to
identify three to five priority areas.
Measuring progress: We propose that the CSTD agrees on a few simple
indicators that can be used to measure progress in addressing the
priorities areas it identifies. For APC, physical infrastructure is
one such key priority.
On obstacles to implementation: Understanding obstacles to
implementation of WSIS goals is essential if these obstacles are to
be overcome. As the CSTD has an overarching role it is best placed to
do this, and to alert ECOSOC to these obstacles. Identifying these
obstacles, and developing ways of overcoming them, should be done
collaboratively with a variety of stakeholders. The CSTD can also
recommend related agenda items to bodies such as the IGF, GAID, and
the UN implementing agencies.
On reporting submitted to the CSTD by institutions tasked with
follow-up and implementation: It would be useful for at least one
section of each of those reports to follow a common reporting format.
This can be used to make it easier to monitor implementation and
lessons learned on specific issues, e.g. application of the WSIS
principles on stakeholder participation.
National implementation: We believe that mechanisms for measuring
national implementation need to be strengthened. What are countries
doing? How do national entities interact with action line
implementation? Is there a national overview reporting frame work and
cycle? We recommend that such a reporting framework be developed and
that governments are asked to submit reports every year. These
reports can become focal points for stakeholder participation.
Business and civil society entities can participate in compilation of
national reports, and present comment and critique on governments'
assessment of progress.
In closing our input we quote from an APC and IteM (Third World
Institute) publication, Global Information Society Watch report, to
be launched here tomorrow:
"Different degrees of access to technology and connectivity mirror
the social and economic divides within and between countries.
Increase in access to ICTs will not, by itself, reduce poverty or
secure freedoms on a sustainable basis. But there is a real danger
that lack of access to ICTs, and to the spaces where decisions are
made about information and communications infrastructure, content and
services, can deepen existing social exclusion, and create new forms
of exclusion."
There is no time to waste. It is a characteristic of the digital
divide that it increases at a rate that is similar to the rapid rate
of change in ICTs themselves.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list