This document attempts to describe GLOCOM
staff's experiences in the preparatory process for the Asia and Pacific
regional WSIS conference. It is written as a first hand account, and as
much as possible is presented in a chronological manner. The issues discussed
are:
Attachments:
1. What is GLOCOM, and GLOCOM's role in WSIS
1.1 GLOCOM
Over the past few months, some NGOs involved in the WSIS process have wondered what GLOCOM is --is it an NGO, is it part of Civil Society? -- and why GLOCOM is involved in WSIS. A short description of GLOCOM is attached.
GLOCOM is a non-profit research institute affiliated with the International University of Japan. But we do not teach, we do not receive funds from the Japanese Ministry of Education (MoE), and we receive no annual stipend from the university.
We do not take money from MoE, and this ensures our academic independence. Japanese university research institutes that take funds from MoE face strict restrictions on how those funds should be used (I am *not* talking about professors and researchers at universities, they enjoy as much academic freedom as they need.)
Most of GLOCOM's funding comes from industry, foundations and government departments on a project basis, a smaller percentage is given as supporting annual contribution. We currently have 38 salaried staff (27 researchers/11 support staff.)
We hope we're a new model for academic research in the public policy sphere.
Since the mid-1980s, GLOCOM's Executive Director, Professor Shumpei Kumon, has been leading Japanese academic thinking on the emergence of information society. Many of GLOCOM's senior staff have experience in community networking dating to the "pre-Internet" days of the mid 1980s and early 90s. We have a history as advocates for freedom related issues and the Internet, our work promoting/supporting the Internet began towards the end of 1992 as the first social science based group in Japan working on social, economic, political and cultural issues in this field, we got direct IP connectivity to the global Internet at that time.
We have good relations with Japanese industry, government, and academia/civil society. And it would be fair to say that we are close to industry and government: this is partly due to the way we raise funds, partly because we believe information society should be an inclusive society, and partly because if we want to have influence we must try to influence those who themselves have the power to influence. We must work with all sectors. Also, some of you who were in Tokyo may remember a description of some of Professor Kumon's ideas about information society, particularly that a new type of key player/actor will emerge, which he names "intelprise" (see, <http://www.glocom.ac.jp/lib/kumon/98/9803Intelprise.html>) which will share their intellectual outputs and influence, rather than trade economic goods. The idea is that "intelprises" are collaborative entities, they work with all sectors of society. This is the model we attempt to follow.
While GLOCOM is funded mainly by industry, those funds do not buy compliance. For example, our largest client is NTT, the incumbent telecommunications company, yet we have consistently proposed public policy measures that have not been favorable to NTT (e.g. we were among the first and leading proponents of residential broadband ADSL in Japan.) If in doubt, try Google, please.
1.2 GLOCOM and WSIS
In December 2000, GLOCOM was invited to join the G8 Digital Opportunity (DOT) Task Force as the Japanese NPO member. Our work in DOT Force was partially funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MPHPT.) Interest in WSIS was a natural continuation of this work. We participated in a UNESCO NGO preparatory meeting on WSIS and attended PrepCom1 on our own funds.
When Tokyo was announced as the location of the Asian [and Pacific] regional meeting during PrepCom1, we began a conversation with MPHPT (the lead Japanese government Ministry responsible for the WSIS Asia Pacific conference along with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan) about the format of the conference. We had worked closely with the MPHPT representative to DOT Force, and he was sympathetic to many of our requests that the regional meeting support a multi-sectoral approach. Unfortunately, this person soon moved to another position and the new staff involved in WSIS preparations were initially more inclined towards an inter-governmental format, following the formal pattern of PrepCom1.
From late summer to early November, we discussed contracting with MPHPT to help facilitate NGO participation in the regional conference. But as we disagreed with NGOs having only a passive role in the formal activities of the conference, we were unable/unwilling to reach an agreement. If the regional conference format excluded NGOs then we thought we would be better protesting this by staying outside the process.
The first regional conference agenda we saw consisted of ministerial and other government statements, formal sessions, with no opportunity for discussion. There was no room on the main agenda of the conference for the active participation of NGOs. MPHPT then decided to make their final decision on the conference format after they had been to the European regional conference in Bucharest (Nov 7-9), and seen how the Europeans handled things. Around that time I sent email to a number of NGO mailing lists asking for news about NGO participation in Bucharest, unfortunately, no relevant replies to those urgent requests for information were received.
Regarding NGO participation and the overall format of the conference, we asked the Ministry to include a discussion session organized by NGOs, that pre- or side- meeting events be considered (as happened during the African regional meeting in Bamako -- Bamako was essentially our ideal-- we later found such meetings were anyway already planned), and that an open discussion session should be held in plenary where all sectors could raise and discuss issues together. We said that if the Ministry could not guarantee equal participation, at least in principle, we would not participate. Nor would we ask other Asian NGOs to come and participate, rather we would make it clear that NGOs would be marginalized by the regional conference process and therefore it would not to be worth attending.
After Bucharest, the meeting agenda improved
slightly, but rejected the Bamako model. January 13, the first day of the
conference, now showed panel discussions, but the main business of the
conference, including the welcome speeches, was not scheduled to begin
until the next day. This seemed to have the effect of marginalizing the
discussion sessions as pre-conference and informal events. This was in
part due to the fact that the Monday, January 13 was a Japanese national
holiday, and therefore it was very difficult to expect a minister to attend
the meeting, not to mention the Prime Minister. We continued to insist
that NGOs should be treated as equal partners to other sector members.
2. Development of the WSIS Tokyo agenda
2.1. WSIS: An Asian Response
Around November 15, Izumi Aizu received an invitation to attend the Bangkok Nov. 22-24 "WSIS: An Asian Response" workshop. Izumi was not able to attend, but I was. We thought to use this meeting as a way to show MPHPT and the WSIS bureaus that NGOs in Asia could organize, could contribute in substantive areas, and wanted and merited a full role in the conference.
I went to Bangkok after we agreed with MPHPT they would consider holding a session for NGOs (their objection to this was that it was difficult to identify who could fairly be said to represent NGOs in Asia and Pacific, and they were also concerned about objections from other Asian governments.) We also asked MPHPT to consider accepting documents produced by representative meetings such as the Bangkok workshop as input papers for the conference (i.e. such documents would become part of the conference record), and that they should be considered in the drafting of the declaration (at this time it was expected that the declaration would be near finalized by around the first week of December.) The Ministry largely agreed, although tentatively. The government's concern was that unlike business associations and private sector groups, where they claimed it is relatively easy to identify the well-established body with proven track record and consistent activities and organization, NGOs did not organize in a way that enabled them to represent any broader community other than themselves. In response, we tried to create some kind of representative legitimacy.
The Nov. 22-24 workshop went well, the output was good, and the Ministry responded positively to the NGOs efforts.
2.2. GLOCOM contracts to support Asia and Pacific NGOs
At the end of November, GLOCOM finally signed a contract with the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications to help support and coordinate Asia and Pacific NGO/civil society participation in the conference. The total contract amount was 10 million yen (around US$84,000.) The contract period includes work beyond PrepCom2 (we originally proposed to cover the period for PrepCom2 and all the way to the Summit itself), but was primarily focused on supporting NGO participation in the Tokyo regional conference. As noted above, GLOCOM is funded on a project basis, all overheads, from salary to the power consumed by our PCs, are included in project costs.
GLOCOM was not an official collaborator in the WSIS Asia Pacific conference <http://www.wsis-japan.jp/conference/org_col/index.html>.
GLOCOM staff working on this project: Izumi Aizu, Adam Peake and Yumiko Masuda. Keisuke Kamimura provided technical support, including setting up an Internet Cafe at the United Nations University over the weekend of January 11-12. Administration staff made arrangements for the distribution funds to fellowship recipients.
2.3 WSIS Tokyo agenda and NGO participation
From the end of November, through December, the conference agenda developed quite rapidly. The November 22-24 Bangkok workshop seems to have been a turning point. The Ministry accepted that NGOs were able to coordinate and become a representative group, with the desire to offer serious content and commitment, and they indicated there was a strong possibility that an NGO organized session could be added to the main conference agenda. At the same time, other organizations (UNDP seem to have been extremely influential, and had been lobbying for such developments for some months) were pushing hard for a more inclusive and more interesting agenda.
At this time (November 22-24), the only news we had on fellowships and aid for people wishing to attend the conference was that donors had been contacted, some funds had been pledged, but details were not available and information was expected in 1 or 2 weeks. We were told the registration process for the conference would be open, no accreditation would be required, and the Rules of Procedures for the PrepComs would not be directly applied to the regional conference, however details about the organization and their representatives wishing to attend would be required.
The draft agenda on November 20 showed statements of welcome and opening the conference officially on Monday, January 13, followed by 4 panel discussion sessions: Cultural Linguistic Diversity, lead by UNESCO; 2 panels on Development and ICT, lead by UNDP and ADB; and a session on the Future of e-economy, lead by the private sector. The second day accommodated the formal agenda of ministerial speeches and statements, and was followed by an "interactive dialogue" session. The third day (until noon) on Wednesday January 15, was for reporting and closing business. Most of the agenda was annotated with "to be fixed", this was seen as an opportunity for NGOs to make a contribution.
Facilities had been arranged for pre-conference side events at the United Nations University, on January 11 & 12. At the time of the November 22-24 Bangkok meeting, 3 events had been proposed; Gender, Youth and Pacific Islands. Anyone could apply to hold such a meeting, it was an open process. The Ministry said outputs from the side events would probably be accepted during the interactive dialogue session on day 2 of the conference.
The <communication@wsisasia.org> mailing list was set up as a result of the November 22-24 Bangkok workshop, and the participants of that meeting and mailing list members became the core contributors to how we moved forward in or discussions with the Ministry, etc. This mailing list took over from the somewhat moribund Yahoo! groups list that the small Asian Caucus group that formed during PrepCom1 had been using to communicate (see <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wsisasia/>)
The Ministry said they would accept specific suggestions and recommendations for the conference declaration. And that there might be an opportunity for an NGO representative to join the drafting committee working on the declaration. The first questions asking who could represent Asian NGOs in the NGO session, and on the declaration drafting committee were proposed on the mailing list on December 5, 2002. There was very little response.
2.4. CONGO Asian Civil Society Forum, Bangkok, December 9-13, 2002
Asian Civil Society Forum, organized by CONGO, The Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations, was held in Bangkok December 9 to 13. GLOCOM was asked to organize a discussion session and a plenary session on WSIS during ACSF where NGOs attending could provide contributions to the regional conference.
During the week of ACSF, a formal process for accepting "input" documents for the WSIS regional meeting was launched by the organizers of the Tokyo conference. Consequently, the "WSIS: An Asian Response" workshop report was accepted as an input document for both the regional conference and PrepCom2 <http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-s/md/03/wsispc2/c/S03-WSISPC2-C-0025!!PDF-E.pdf> The Bangkok workshop document formed the basis of discussion at ASCF. The strategy that emerged from the first Bangkok workshop and NGO mailing list was to attempt to build an evolving common position among NGOs from the region, so that the documents and opinions we presented to the regional WSIS conference could be shown to be the work of a much larger community of NGOs than could be physically present in Tokyo.
Output from the CONGO meeting was accepted as a contribution to the regional conference, and a representative of the ASCF meeting invited to deliver a statement during the sessions on January 14 <http://www.wsis-japan.jp/documents/ngo_24.pdf>
During discussion among NGOs at ACSF <http://www.acsf.net/>, we were able to make final plans for participation and contributions to the regional WSIS conference. In the weeks between the 2 Bangkok meetings, the attitude of the Tokyo organizers toward the NGO participation in the conference softened considerably. Indications were given that there was a likelihood that NGOs would be able to organize a panel session on Monday, January 13, although the Ministry was still concerned if NGOs could present a proposal that was "representative".
A Joint-statement on WSIS was drafted, discussed and approved in an open manner during ACSF, and signed by 107 people. The statement called for a more inclusive approach to the Tokyo conference, among other things, as follows:
Finally we strongly welcome and endorse the multi-stakeholder participatory approach to the Summit and its preparatory process articulated in Resolution 56/183 by the General Assembly. Having said this however, we express some of our concerns to the preparatory process in reality. We note that the draft schedule of the Asian Regional Conference for the WSIS in Tokyo has not yet included an official program for NGOs and the civil society. We urge that the organizer should make it more open to NGOs and the civil society and guarantee participation of civil society as equal to any other stakeholders. We also like to request that the organizer commit to reflect the inputs from the NGOs and the civil society in the final document.
This joint-statement was sent to the Tokyo organizer and accepted as an NGO statement to be presented at the plenary on January 14.
In line with the ASCF meeting outcome and requests by NGOs, Izumi Aizu started an activity to setup a coordination body of NGOs so that a plenary panel session by NGOs could be accepted at the conference.
A number of NGO members at the Bangkok meeting attempted to build an NGO session around some clearly identified caucus and issue groups. This also matched some of the conditions for financial assistance (see discussion below), and also the organizing groups of the main NGO related pre-conference events planned for January 11 and 12. The intention was to offer a session with speakers from Gender and Youth caucus', a person to speak on ICTs for development, a speaker from the Pacific Islands, and a representative from communications rights (essentially, a representative of the November 22-24 Bangkok workshop.) The session that finally appeared on the agenda of the regional meeting also included a speaker representing a side-event discussion on "defining information society", and commentators from government and the private sector. Known experts from these different caucus/issue groups were asked for their comments and to suggest potential speakers (e.g. WSIS Youth caucus representatives and GKP, various groups and individuals associated with the gender side-event sessions, representatives from Pacific Islands, etc.)
This process was not as transparent as it might have been, but as always we had little time, and as we were trying to create a session that looked representative, from what was essentially a group that had not been drawn together before, it seemed sensible not to show our frantic efforts to those who might use them as a reason to deny the session. We have since learnt that these concerns were probably unjustified, but we were then less than a month away from the start of the conference and there was still no NGO organized session on the agenda. There was a feeling at the time of not taking risks. However, the responsibility for suggesting speakers was essentially delegated to members of representative groups, the process seemed an appropriate and practical way to begin. And as mentioned above, requests for suggestions about possible panelists, etc., were sent to the NGO mailing list in early December and did not receive many replies.
GLOCOM also facilitated "Japan NGO Coordination Committee for WSIS", a kind of counter part to the Asia-Pacific NGO committee. In the very limited time available, three meetings were held, on December 18 and 26, and January 8. We discussed about the coordination of side events, speaker selection for the NGO session, selecting representatives to the Drafting Committee, and some logistical support for NGOs coming from outside Japan.
In response to an open letter from a number of Japanese NGO members, led by Toshimaru Ogura of JCA-NET, a meeting with MPHPT was held on December 16 to clarify some of the preparatory procedures for the regional conference, including the invitation of East Timor and North Korea, as well as the selection process and criteria for fellowships. Izumi Aizu of GLOCOM also attended this meeting. There were several points clarified and resolved (e.g. about the session lead by NGOs, and open drafting meeting), while some issues remained unsolved (such as accepting individuals to participate and providing interpretation and translation into all Asian languages.)
A plan for developing an NGO organized session was put to the Ministry and others organizing the conference, and around December 22 we received confirmation that an NGO session would be on the main conference agenda. At a meeting of the Japan NGO Committee for WSIS on December 26, it was agreed that Izumi Aizu of GLOCOM with Tadahisa Hamada of J-CAFE, as alternative, would join the Tokyo declaration drafting committee. An additional NGO representative from the region was also invited to join. A request for recommendations was sent to the NGO mailing list and Jaba Menon of OneWorld India was recommended. Jaba was Rapporteur of the NGO sessions at ACSF in Bangkok, earning respect and appreciation for her work. At the Open Meeting of Asia Pacific NGOs held on January 11, Mavic Balleza of Isis International, Philippines, was also selected as an alternate. However, her selection was made too late in the process and through no fault of her own, Mavic was not able to participate the drafting sessions.
It is very much appreciated that the Ministry
of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications became
a strong supporter of NGO participation in the conference, and the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs also supported this position. In particular, introducing
the significant innovation of allowing NGOs and private sector to join
the drafting group of the Tokyo declaration, and holding a public comment
session where all delegates had the opportunity to comment on the draft
declaration was an important, positive development. Clearly, this was an
unprecedented development for a UN preparatory meeting, and one we feel
reflects the true intent of the multi-sectoral approach promised by the
WSIS process.
3. Fellowships and related issues
Registration of NGO participants to the WSIS regional meeting began on November 28. The registration form asked for details about the organization and person(s) applying (as is usual for UN PrepCom processes, no individual registrations were accepted), and if the person(s) wished to be considered for a fellowship that would support travel, accommodation and some other expenses of attending the Tokyo conference.
As part of GLOCOM's work with MPHPT, we carried out basic screening of registrations. This entailed confirming the identity of the organization, checking what requests had been made in the registration, and generally preparing for the visa application, and, if requested, fellowship processes. Registrations opened on November 28, and were scheduled to close on December 8 (later extended to December 13.)
Towards the end of November, when GLOCOM was trying to finalize its contract with MPHPT, no funds had been officially allocated for fellowships. Funds had been pledged, but the amount had not been confirmed. Concerned that a lack of fellowships would significantly reduce the ability of NGOs to participate, GLOCOM voluntarily decided to allocate approx. 30% (US$25,000) of the contract fee we would receive from the MPHPT to a fellowship fund. Lack of clarity about the availability of funds for fellowships caused a delay in GLOCOM contracting with MPHPT from early November to the end of November. This later significantly burdened our fellowship processing activities.
On November 28, we received the first news that UNDP and ADB would each provide a $25,000 to the fellowship fund. However, even as the registration process began, it was still unclear what the total fellowship fund would be. At this time, I was attending the Bangkok workshop on WSIS, while Izumi Aizu was attending "Digital Review of Asia Pacific" editorial meeting hosted by Pan Asia Networking of IDRC and Asia Pacific Development Information Program of UNDP, in Kuala Lumpur.
On December 4, GLOCOM applied for an infoDev conference grant of US$15,000. infoDev, a multi-donor grant facility managed by the World Bank, prefers to award grants on a matching funds basis, and we offered a portion of the money we had available for such a matching fund. infoDev requires that their funds be used to allow the participation of individuals from developing countries, see <http://www.infodev.org/icsf/> for a detailed explanation of the infoDev Conference Scholarship Fund.
On December 9, while Izumi and I were attending ACSF in Bangkok, infoDev notified us that our grant request had been approved. The total infoDev/GLOCOM fellowship fund is US$30,000. GLOCOM is responsible for the allocation of this infoDev fund following the conditions stated in our application. UNDP and ADB funds also focused on supporting people from developing nations. However, we coordinated closely with UNDP and ADB when allocating all funds, and had more discretion over how the remaining $10,000 GLOCOM fund was distributed.
Funds for fellowships were allocated as follows:
Donor
Amount
ADB
$25,000
UNDP
$25,000
infoDev
$15,000
GLOCOM $25,000
(approx., 3 million yen)
($15,000 in matching grant with infoDev, combined $30,000)
($10,000 GLOCOM discretion.)
(note, final distribution of funds were
different from above estimates, detailed breakdown of fellowships will
be provided later.)
GLOCOM's infoDev application said we would give priority in allocating funds to NGOs from the Gender and Youth caucus groups, NGOs from LDCs, NGOs working on ICTs for development, and NGOs from Pacific Island nations. We used the registration process announced on the main conference webpage as our pool of fellow candidates. GLOCOM consulted with a group of experts from various fields (gender, youth, ICTs for development, and Pacific Islands, also matching to some extent attempts ongoing at the same time to establish an NGO organized panel session during the conference) to guide us as to most likely recipients. We took care to ensure people with disabilities and other marginalized groups were considered for fellowships. ADB and UNDP used their national offices and other experts for advice.
It is important to understand that while there was a general pool of funds available for fellowships, each donor had to follow their own criteria in how they allocated specific funds. By coordination among donors, we were able to satisfy these criteria and provide funds to a broad spectrum of people from the region.
We discussed and coordinated among ourselves (ADB/UNDP/GLOCOM) to ensure that a diverse and broadly representative group of people was awarded fellowships. On December 14 (Saturday) and 15 (Sunday), UNDP representative Atsushi Yamanaka from New York, and ADB representative Susan Ellison-McGee from Manila, flew to Tokyo and had meetings with Izumi Aizu and me, representing GLOCOM (just back from the Bangkok ACSF), together with Michiko Fukahori of MPHPT, to coordinate the fellowship selection criteria, selection process and implementation details. An internal list of selection standards was agreed during this meeting and an initial selection of candidates broadly agreed. Our goal was to ensure that as many people as possible, from as many countries, representing as many different interests (around the core mentioned above), and from as many different organizations as possible would be able to attend the conference. This attempt to ensure wide diversity may have been unfair in some cases, on only one or two occasions (and only for specific reasons) did we allocate fellowships to more than one person from the same organization, and generally did not provide funds to people if they had colleagues attending under their organizations own funds, or if a colleague had been funded by another donor organization.
Following our December 14 and 15 meetings, ADB, UNDP and GLOCOM representatives were in constant email communication during the lead up to the Asian regional conference. If it weren't for the Internet and email we would never have been able to organize broad participation from across Asia Pacific within 4 weeks, during the long holiday period. We also must acknowledge the work of MPHPT and Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff who worked very hard to secure visas during this difficult period. It was an outstanding accomplishment and proof of the importance of ICT in sharing knowledge, and cooperative working.
We are very grateful to infoDev for allocating US$15,000. GLOCOM has added an additional US$15,000 as a matching amount. We took this action on our own initiative to ensure that adequate funds would be available. It is unfortunate that the time available (e.g. for reasons beyond our and infoDev's control, the infoDev grant was only confirmed on December 9) meant that the process was rushed.
Fellowships were primarily to help organizations from developing nations in the region. This requirement was partly to ensure that representatives from all countries could be present in Tokyo, and also it was a strict requirement of some the funds we received. However, where it was necessary to bring a particular experience, represent a particular key issue, and to ensure geographic diversity, GLOCOM separately allocated part of its own fellowship funding to a small number of people from some developed countries and economies in the region.
We described the fellowship process in presentations at the ACSF meeting in Bangkok, December 10 and 13, and the powerpoint files of these presentations were sent to the NGO mailing list on December 16. During the ACSF meeting, we explained that as time was very short (the original deadline for fellowship applications was December 8, at the request of Asian NGOs we pushed the Japanese government to extend to December 13 which was also the last day of ACSF), and chances of selection may not be high, but still encouraged people to apply.
Unfortunately citizens of many countries in the Asian and Pacific region face significant burdens in obtaining entry visas for Japan, and the whole fellowship selection process, due in part to extension of the deadline we requested, had to be completed during the Christmas holiday and 9-day long year-end and New Year holidays in Japan. We were very much aware of these time constraints, and the Ministry was also very concerned, but in order to provide better opportunities for Asian and Pacific NGOs to be informed and therefore to be able to apply for a fellowships, we took the risk.
Of course, no fellowship could be allocated until after all applications were received. Requests were coordinated among the various funders (UNDP, ADB, GLOCOM/infoDev, with each seeking some external expert advice on who should receive funds), and we were not able to announce the first batch of successful fellows until December 23. For budget planning, it was necessary to allocate funds in batches as we could not anticipate who would actually be able to accept, what the price of each air ticket would be, etc. Notice of unsuccessful requests for fellowships and people who were "pending" were sent on December 25.
At that time, a total of 235 organizations had registered: 190 indicated or requested a fellowship (many organizations requested support for more than 1 person.) 45 did not request a fellowship. 38 were selected, subject to their confirmation, visa/ticket arrangements, etc. 33 were told they had been unsuccessful in their request for fellowships, then we sent another decline notice to the remaining 81. 38 were left as "pending" (for additional consideration as the remaining budget becomes clearer.) Fellowship request "pending notices" were also sent. A breakdown of registration data will be made available once sorting and other processes are complete.
An additional complication was introduced when the conference registration form was changed so that it no longer include a space where registrants were asked to note their request for a fellowship. Information about fellowships was described on the website, and some people included a fellowship request in a covering email message or fax, others simply added a line of text to the registration form. But many did not mention that they wished to be considered for a fellowship until too late. GLOCOM was not involved in maintaining documents or the conference website, and this change did not come to our attention until very late in the process.
Organizations/people that were not allocated a fellowship were still able to attend the conference, registration requests were not turned down (if people can provide their own funds, obviously there is not enough money to give a fellowship to all.)
Registration process:
a) Organizations not requesting fellowship -- registration successful, organization asked if they needed help with visa, etc.
b) Fellowship requested -- if successful, person asked for information about air tickets, arrangements made for hotels, etc.
c) Fellowship requested -- successful, but pending confirmation once remaining budget is known (then back in the loop, with application requested successful, or finally unsuccessful.)
d) Fellowship requested -- unsuccessful, person informed that they are registered for the conference but no funds are available to support them. They can participate if they are able to find alternative resources.
There were other sources of funding
such as GKP and Sasakawa Pacific Island Nations Fund (SPINF), but their
funds were sector-specific and privately allocated at the discretion of
those organizations. GKP and SPINF made very significant contributions
to the Asia and Pacific regional conference, but were not involved in the
"official" conference fellowships.
4. Initial assessment and way forward
4.1. Outcomes
We believe the Tokyo conference was a
success.
4.2. The way forward; some
questions
With hindsight, there are many things that could have been done better. And we welcome your comments. But when you comment, please remember the time line we were working with in the build-up to Tokyo conference. Had we had an extra month, or sometimes an extra week, we might have done some things differently, please keep the time pressures in mind.
Much of what is described above is not new, it was mentioned on the NGO mailing list, in presentations, or in email to groups that were acting as representatives of broader communities. If we had time, it might have been collated in one place. We did not have time (or additional staff). As we went to meetings, or discussed new issues, we tried to judge if a community of interest was represented, and if it was, we did not think to outreach further to that group. When we thought some group was missing, we tried to inform them about WSIS and the regional conference.
We welcome your comments. Particularly, on lessons from our preparation for Tokyo that will help us do a better job in preparing for PrepCom3 in September? (PrepCom2 is perhaps too near to do very much, though we should try if we can.)
Questions:
Thanks,
Adam Peake, for Izumi Aizu and GLOCOM
- - - - -
Attachment 1.
About GLOCOM (01/24/03)
The Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM) was established in spring of 1991 as a social science institute specializing in the study of information society and Japan. From the beginning, GLOCOM has engaged in research, constructed policy proposals, and dispersed knowledge using the newest information technology. Toward this goal, in 1992 GLOCOM recognized the importance of the Internet and fully embraced it.
GLOCOM's research focuses on the social, economic and cultural impacts of new communications technologies. We study and advise on telecommunications issues, and are particularly active in initiatives promoting regional and local development through communication technology. We have been very involved with the evolution of the Internet in Japan; in the early 1990s GLOCOM was the first Japanese social science based research institute to recognize and promote the Internet as the new global communications infrastructure. The center also studies energy, security, and environmental issues in the Asia-Pacific region, develops public policy tools and Open Source applications, and is a leading center in Japan for the study of ICTs and the "digital divide". GLOCOM was the Japanese NPO member of the G8's "DOT Force" digital divide initiative.
GLOCOM is a self-funding, non-profit research institute affiliated with the International University of Japan. However, the center is under the direct control of the Chancellor of the university and is differentiated and independent from the university's educational facilities. Because GLOCOM is neither subsidized nor supervised by the Japanese Ministry of Education, our research activities can be free of constraints imposed within the traditional frame of academism.
GLOCOM receives funding in the form of research grants and annual supporting grants from some of Japan's largest technology and communications companies, from foundations and from Japanese government ministries. GLOCOM employs 19 full time researchers and 8 visiting researchers at its office in Tokyo. GLOCOM's administration group currently numbers 11 full-time staff and a number of part-time staff.
<http://www.glocom.ac.jp>
Main home page
<http://www.glocom.org>
GLOCOM Platform, providing information about Japanese current affairs,
and technology issues.
- - - - - -
Attachment 2.
1) Selection Guideline for Fellowship
(commonly agreed by: UNDP, ADB, GLOCOM,
December 15, 2002)
A. Criteria
1) Relevance to WSIS Asia Conference
To be Asia Pacific based organizations
To have activities related to "information
society" including but not limited to ICT
2) Relevance to NGO/Civil Society
To be clearly identified as NGO/Civil
Society actor or supporter
To be identified as possible
speaker/discussant
to Side events:
Gender, Youth, Pacific Islands, ICT for
Development
Information Society, Communication
Rights
3) Priority for those who need
assistance:
from Least developed countries
bodies who have less funding sources
4) To make selection to achieve:
Diversity of geography, culture,
generation
Diversity of Issues and Fields they work
on
Diversity of types of NGO/Civil Society,
ie advocacy, community, entrepreneur
B. Selection Process
Set-up a team by Donors -- ADB, UNDP and
GLOCOM
Check with the information provided with
the application including the content of the web site for those who seem
to qualify
Screened according to the criteria
Deny the ones not relevant (outside Asia,
from developed countries, not NGO/CSO)
Select the ones seem to be strongly qualified
-- from each Donor's viewpoint
Coordinate the ones selected/disqualified
each other
Inquire the ones with UNDP country offices
for recommendation
Consult with other relevant bodies
(ie Side Event organizer, known reliable
persons)
From Conference website:
A limited number of fellowships are available
for NGO/NPO/Civil Society Institutions from the following countries:
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia,
East Timor, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kiribati, Lao, Maldives, Marshal
Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, Pakistan, Palau,
Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand,
Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu's, Vietnam
The fellowship will cover the expenses of participation in the conference for one delegate (including accommodation and transport to the conference)
Candidates for a fellowship should state their wish to apply for one on their registration form and send it to the secretariat before 13th December 2002. Before filling the form, please note the following selection criteria for fellowship candidates:
1) The organization be recognized by its
national government
2) The organization has undertaken significant
work on issues pertaining to ICT for Development and issues related to
Information Society at large
3) The organization be endorsed/cleared
by respective organization's country office
4) Organizations from LDCs will be given
priority
5) The organization should present a list
of projects performed in the field of ICTD, if available
END