[governance] WSIS Forum location : the main issues

Tue Sep 7 08:58:06 EDT 2010

Saisissez du texte, l'adresse d'un site Web ou importez un document à
traduire. <http://translate.google.com/?tr=f&hl=fr>
Annuler <http://translate.google.com/?tr=t&hl=fr>
Écouter
 hi
Explanations such as argued by Bertrand are largely satisfactory and
sufficiently detailed in relation to the Tunis Agenda and Action Plan of
Geneva.
Certainly, organized the forum of the WSIS in New York may not be an
handicap for a good representation of multi-stakeholders.
Some concern remains access in the U.S. will remain selective ie exclusive.
However, if we consider the chapters 90,91,93,95,95,96,97,98 Tunis Agenda,
should be to support the version of Bertrand geographical rotation Forum
World Summit on the information society.
But there are other factors will arise, especially for most African
countries!
Do they have sufficiently developed their national ICT strategy? Is there a
dashboard for the development of ICT infrastructure into rural areas?
After Tunis, Africa she became aware of ICT issues ?....
So many questions which largely justifies the arguments of Bertrand on
geographical rotation of the forum.
2015 will serve as a thermometer.
Écouter
Lire phonétiquement

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN

2010/9/7 Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>

> Dear all,
>
> Discussions on the list regarding the proposal to hold WSIS Forum 2011 in
> New York highlight that there are several parallel and interrelated
> dimensions. In a nutshell, the main elements to consider seem to me as
> follows (and the rationale for each is detailed below) :
>
> - the WSIS Forum should not become an overall WSIS review but is one of the
> two legs of the implementation process, focusing on development and the
> catalysis of projects
> - irrespective of the issue of the location, the positive trend towards
> multi-stakeholder preparation should be continued, through the formation for
> instance of a MAG
> - the choice of location could be initially linked to the lead agency in
> chairmanship of UNGIS in a given year, but geographic rotation is desirable
> in a longer term perspective to avoid holding the meeting only in Europe or
> the US
> - visa and cost issues are not in favor of New York, and would need to be
> addressed if New York is retained this year or in the future, to ensure
> broad participation
> - a decoupling in time of the WSIS Forum and the May meetings in Geneva
> could be beneficial
> - raising awareness among New York diplomats is a worthy objective, but
> should be timed appropriately to maximize impact and avoid backlash
> - the discussion on the WSIS Forum and its future should keep in mind its
> desirable articulation with the IGF and the possible contribution of both to
> the preparation of the general WSIS review in 2015 (whatever name it
> takes).
>
> More detailed arguments below.
>
> 1) The natural function of the WSIS Forum
>
> We know it is not an explicit decision from the Summit, as it emerged from
> the organization of the "cluster of WSIS-related events". The shift to the
> label WSIS Forum last year indicates a desire to make it the annual review
> of the progress in implementation in all aspects, including Internet
> Governance. In other terms, it is a move to make it an overall umbrella,
> covering also the IGF (cf. the idea that has been floated to ultimately
> merge the two) and to somehow preempt the review role of the CSTD. However,
> it makes more sense to consider it as *the second leg of the
> implementation process* : the IGF dealing with policy issues and the WSIS
> Forum dealing more with actual projects and concrete actions : the various
> actors describing their programs, the difficulties encountered on the
> ground, and exchanging best practices that can be replicated. Discussion on
> location should not forget this *first fundamental alternative* : the WSIS
> Forum as the overall implementation review process (overseeing the IGF)
> or IGF and WSIS Forum as two complementary processes to catalyze progress.
> The first option could lead to internet governance issues becoming again the
> center political battle and the real development agenda being sidelined. The
> Plan of Action is more than Internet Governance and the concrete projects
> dimension deserves to be fully addressed.
>
> 2) Making its preparation more multi-stakeholder
>
> The WSIS Forum has adopted from the beginning an open door policy, which is
> a good thing. Furthermore, open consultations (however limited) have been
> introduced last year and this is a noteworthy progress, probably obtained
> because the IGF practice set a benchmark in that respect (a good example of
> the percolation of the IGF method). However, the Agenda, the format and the
> selection of panelist are still under the responsibility of the organizing
> Agencies (mostly led by ITU). The creation of *a Multi-stakeholder
> Advisory Group (MAG) for the WSIS Forum* would improve the preparatory
> process and guarantee equal representation of the different groups. The
> modalities of preparation of the meeting are probably as important as its
> location.
>
> 3) The role of the convenor
>
> Initially, the meeting (the cluster of action lines) was organized by the
> ITU alone with the meeting taking place in ITU premises. More recently, the
> concept is that this event is organized by the "lead facilitating Agencies"
> (ITU, Unesco, DESA and UNCTAD if I'm not mistaken), even if the ITU
> maintains a prominent role and most of the meetings still take place in the
> ITU building. It would probably make sense to push the logic a bit further
> and consider that, as they rotate in their chairmanship of the UNGIS, the
> *lead facilitators rotate accordingly in their responsibility to be the
> convenor/organizer of the WSIS Forum*. In that context, holding the WSIS
> Forum in New York should not be considered as a permanent move, but as
> corresponding to DESA being in the rotating chairmanship. Is it DESA's turn
> next year ? or Unesco ? And if it is Unesco, would they be ready to do so,
> now or later ?
>
> 4) Geographic rotation
>
> Discussions on the list and Wolfgang's comments in particular point to the
> potential benefits of holding the WSIS Forum in different parts of the
> world. The choice should not be limited to Europe and the United States
> because of the location of the lead agencies. In this respect, again, any
> holding of the WSIS Forum in New York in 2011 or later, should not be
> considered as a permanent move but at most as a first step towards *a
> geographical rotation facilitating outreach* to different regions of the
> world.
>
> 5) Ensuring broad participation (Visas and other logistical issues)
>
> A clear objective for the IGC is maximizing participation. The difficulty
> to obtain visas for the US (and costs) is probably the major objection
> regarding holding the WSIS Forum in New York. However, Anriette and Shaila
> have highlighted that significant events have been organized in New York
> with appropriate participation form actors around the world, provided some
> specific measure are taken (fellowships in particular). Likewise, Milton and
> Ginger highlight the capacity to attract organizations from the North and
> Latin America that have cost problems flying to Europe (this is the reason
> why geographical rotation is suggested).  So, as Meryem rightly reminds us,
> the* visa and cost factors are not the only elements to take into account*: the political background is probably more important. In any case,
> *a special effort *in terms of visa obtention for all participants and
> financial support is a prerequisite if the WSIS Forum goes to New York this
> year or later.
>
> 6) Timing
>
> The WSIS Forum has traditionally been co-located with the IGF consultations
> and the CSTD meeting in May in Geneva, indeed facilitating participation and
> reducing costs. However, the whole compact period of two to three weeks is
> relatively difficult to manage in heavy agendas and schedules. Furthermore,
> if (as mentioned in point 1 above) the WSIS Forum is mostly about practical
> implementation rather than covering everything including Internet
> Governance, then the overlap in terms of participants is limited. *Decoupling
> the WSIS Forum in time from the IGF consultations and CSTD meetings* could
> even diversify the participation and help focus the WSIS Forum on the
> development agenda rather than a rehash of Internet Governance issues.
> Finally, leaving some time between the WSIS Forum and the CSTD meeting would
> allow the CSTD to receive a formal input from the WSIS Forum, something that
> is not possible when the two meetings are only days apart, as it is today.
>
> 7) Capacity to influence New York diplomats
>
> Provided the WSIS Forum is truly multi-stakeholder, open and participatory
> (including in its preparation), there could be some merit in *exposing New
> York diplomats to this particular methodology*. But it can be a two-edged
> sword, if it triggers a counter-reaction from more traditionally inclined
> governments that could negatively impact the discussions in the UN GA in
> 2011 on "improvements" to the IGF.
> On a side note, Lee indicated on the list that media presence in New York
> could be a way to get attention. But is media attention what is needed in
> 2011 or a stronger focus on concrete projects ?
>
> 8) The 2015 perspective
>
> There will be a general review of the WSIS implementation in 2015 (this is
> paragraph 111 of the Tunis Agenda). And there is a great likelihood that
> some countries will push in the ITU Plenipotentiary for a new Summit (a WSIS
> III) at that date. However, if the multistakeholder approach consecrated in
> Tunis is to be respected, an event in 2015 (whatever its name) *should **
> not** be held along the same format as in Geneva or Tunis*. It must be a
> truly multi-stakeholder format, building upon the experience of both the IGF
> and the WSIS Forum. In such a context, the WSIS Forum and the IGF in the
> next five years would be *the two natural preparatory spaces* for the two
> dimensions of implementation : concrete projects and programs on the one
> hand and Internet Governance on the other. This eliminates the need for
> rigid PrepComs and could encourage the two spaces to progressively catalyze
> proposals (recommendations ?) to be endorsed by the 2015 event.
>
> I hope this helps clarify the challenges and the different dimensions of
> the debate and can facilitate the preparation of an IGC position. My three
> cents (because the post is long :-)
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
> --
> ____________________
> Bertrand de La Chapelle
> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>
> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
> Exupéry
> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100907/ca5d2bb0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t