Civil Society Meetings on Feb. 20
8:30 - 10:00 Civil Society Plenary(Chair, Renate Bloom)
Chair opened the Plenary with a request that this plenary is to discuss
Contents asking for no procedural issues about CSB today. The
procedural issues shall be discussed tomorrow.
Sally Burch made a general report of Sub-Committee on Substance and
Contents. The various caucuses and WGs were presented with its
designated coordinators. The Sub-Comm meeting on content on Feb. 20
was announced for those who are interested in this activity.
Various Caucuses and WGs proposed its own meeting.
Structure decided through PrepCom I
----------------------------------------------------
Civil Society Coordinating Committee
Sub-Comm 1 on Participation (Sean O’ Sochuru)
Sub-Comm on Substance & Content (Sally Burch)
- 20 or so Caucuses and WGs
Sub-Comm on Funding & Supporting NGO participation
Structure decided through PrepCom II
-----------------------------------------------------
Civil Society Bureau(Focal point from 23 families)
23 Families
Creation of Sub-Comm on Procedure was proposed during the meeting
by Bertran de la Chapelle and the meeting was convened at 11:30
[scriber's note] When YJ Park made a presentation on "proposal, How
to form Civil Society Bureau"[Appendix 1] the day before, it was promised
by the chair the Plenary is to discuss the proposal under the condition that
its written proposal is distributed to the attendees. It was distributed but
never discussed as it was promised.
11:30 - 12:20 Committee on procedure(Chair, Bertrand de la Chapelle)
The meeting was focused on how to Civil Society Groups can be
effectively heard in this PrepComII process. It was concluded that
Tokyo Consultation process shall be suggested to the gov'ts as
reference. The draft proposal was circulated by Adam Peake and
Izumi Aizu.[Appendix 2]
There were around 8 people including Civil Society Secretariat(Louise)
12:20 - 13:00 Asia Family(Chair, Al Alegre)
Various meeting announcements were shared. When the chair proposed
Asia family should designate its "focal point", there were still remaning
concerns in Civil Society Bureau after several Q&A. There were four
nominations(Al Alegre, Angela M. Kuga Thas, YJ Park, Izumi Aizu) for the
focal point. On the other hand, the chair informed that there would be
designated focal points' meeting today. Therefore, it was decided that Asia
family is to have another meeting from 6:00 pm. Asia family decided to
attend Content meeting.
13:00 - 15:00 Content (Chair, Sally and Bill)
Sally explained currently it was not still decided by the gov'ts which
document(1. Compilation of the outcomes of the regional conferences
prepared by the WSIS executive secretariat and 2. Adama Samassekou's
as President of the WSIS Preparatory Committee) shall be used as
a main paper for the PrepCom II.
Therefore, it was concluded that the newly formed drafting committee
is to work on both papers based on Civil Society Coordinating Group's
paper dated on February 5, 2003.
Action item;
1. To form a small group of a drafting committee on the volunteer basis
under Sally and Bill's coordination.
2. To designate contact points for Caucuses and WGs to facilitate
discussion.
3. To form monitoring committee(three people on the volunteers basis)
for the Sub-Committee 2 in order to respond to the gov'ts discussion
more effectively as civil society groups.
The structure of the Sub-Committee on Substance and Contents
[Appendix 3]
16:00 - 17:00 European Family(Chair, Veny)
There were 10 or so participants. Veny Marcovski was decided as focal
point previously but there were concerns raised by those who joined
Europrean family. First concern in the two regions(North America and Europe)
under one Europe and the procedure. After discussion, it was decided that
Europe family is to have two focal points. No alternate was designated.
17:00 - 18:00 Social Movement Family(Chair, Sean O Siochru)
There were 20 or so participants. After each participant introduced social
movement they are interested in, chair asked what could be the definition
of social movement as a family. It was strongly agreed that those activities
which try to change social value can be regarded as such. Due to time
constraints, the chair proposed this family have another meeting to desgnate
focal point of this family. For the time being, the current chair is to play
a role
of focal point.
18:00 - 19:30 Asia Family(Chair, Raijeli Lili Mafi Nicole)
It was requested by Amir Barmal that Ms. Raijeli chair the family
to designate a focal point for Asia family as a neutral party.
There were lengthy discussion and debate on the function/role of focal
point. It was decided that Asia family is to request to the plenary that
written document on CSB is to be prepared to enhance understanding
on CSB especially for those who use English as its second language.
Finally, the decision for the focal point was put to vote and it turned out
that Al Alegre as focal point and Angela M. Kuga Thas as its alternate.
The people who participated in the voting were 15 including 5 people
from Youth group.
18:30 - 20:00(?) Pre-Focal Point meeting at ITU
It was told that there was a pre-focal point meeting at ITU which later
invited
concerns in "the closed manner" of the meeting. The next day the plenary
decided every focal point meeting shall be open for the observers.
Workshop
10:00 - 13:00
Introduction
ICT 4D Multi-sector partnerships
-The challenges ahead
-Typology of multi-sector partnerships
-Combined lessons from DOT force and BPD programme
Case-studies
-National Strategic Partnership - CISCO/UNIFEM/Gov't Jordan
-Local Delivery Partenership - Infocentros Telecenter Model, El Salvador
Exercise
-Partnership Exploration
-Partner identification and core competencies mapping
Road map
15:00 - 18:00
Introduction of e-Communities Approach in the WSIS
-Alain Clerc, Head of the Civil Society Division,
WSIS Executive Secretariat
-Christophe Nuttal, Senior Programme Coordinator,
UNITAR(CIFAL Programme)
Regional Governments and Local Authorities Commitment Towards
Building e-Communities
-Javier Urizarbarrena, UNITAR
-Pierre-Alain Muet, Deputy Mayor of City of Lyon
Complementary between Local Authorities and other Civil Society Groups
-Alain Ambrosi, Carrefour Mondial de l'Internet Citoyen
-T.H. Chowdary, Info Tech Advisor, Gov't of Andhra Pradesh
-Gail Hurley, Director, European Volunteer Center
-Private sector Representatives
Open Discussion
Conclusion and Recommendations
Participants for Asia
[Appendix 1]Draft Proposal to the civil society groups in WSIS2003
- How to form Civil Society Bureau - YJ Park , Feb. 19. 2003
First of all, I would like to make sure I do strongly support to set up CS
Bureau in a timely manner to interact with governmental Bureau. However,
I would like to draw your attentions to CSB proposal dated February 17th
after I attended several family meetings as of February 18th. In the
proposal
it says $BE8(Bithin the civil society itself and among the NGO community,
there is a growing acknowledgement of the need for a democratic,
transparent and inclusive mechanism that facilitates full participation of
CS&NGO. Moreover, the evolutive nature of the process requires that
newcomers find a place to communicate their concerns.”
As one of newcomers of this process, I do have a serious concern
whether this process is willing to accommodate to the concerns raised
by newcomers after I witnessed concerns raised through several family
meetings. We do have time constraints to set up CSB this week but
nothing should prevent us from establishing more legitimate process
in order to get more supports from the other NGOs who are not attending
this meeting.
Here I want to share two concerns in the CSB proposal itself and
suggest we add five new rules on how to elect family representative
or focal point as an independent section in the proposal to set up more
legitimate CSB both in the short-term and in the long-term.
My first concern comes from 5th paragraph 2nd sentence of the
proposal dated February 17th. $BE8(Bithin the civil society itself and
among the NGO community, there is a growing acknowledgement
of the need for a democratic, transparent and inclusive mechanism
that facilitates full participation of CS&NGO in the debate.”, which
I believe it unnecessarily leads to the concept of restricted civil society’
s
participation in the form of debate. Therefore, I propose to delete
$BEJ(Bn the debate”.
Second, I see some inconsistency in the proposal between
Section 3. Functions of the CS and NGO Bureau/Terms of Reference
which is often presented as focal point in our discussion from
yesterday and the term CS Bureau executive members
If the representative of each family serves on the CS Bureau as
a focal point, I don$BCU(B think it goes with the terminology of CS
Bureau Executive members. If we say $BEF(Bxecutive” it implies
it does more than focal point function. Therefore, we should delete
$BEF(Bxecutive” if the main function of representative is a focal point
as it has been emphasized.
Lastly, I here propose five new rules on how to elect family
representative or focal point.
Rule 1: Interim CSB members for PrepComII
The representative of each family as focal point should serve
on the CS Bureau members on the interim basis for PrepCom2.
They have mandate to organize more legitimate representative
selection process in a democratic and transparent manner before
PrepCom 3.
Rule 2: Participation and Representation
One organization may participate in as many as families under
the condition that it belongs to those families according to the
corresponding families’ membership criteria. However, one
organization should not be represented more than once in the
CS Bureau.
Rule 3: (draft)Charter
The interim representative of each family as focal point should
deliver its own self-organizing principles in the form of draft charter.
In each charter it should clarify membership criteria, election
mechanism to select their representative as their focal point for
the family, goals and missions of the family after full consultation
with whole family members not later than early June.
Rule 4: Alternate representative as focal point
CSB recommends each family should have (interim) alternate
representative as complimentary focal point in case of the
absence of the primary focal point in managing consultation
process with family members and representing family in the
various places.
Rule 5: Geographical Diversity and equal gender representation
Due to limited number of representatives as focal points, CSB
makes sure the collective outcome of each family meets
geographical diversity and equal gender representation. Therefore,
out of 21 representatives as focal points there should be no more
than $BET(Bix” from one specific region and there should be no more than
12 from one gender. If such recommended balance is broken,
each regional family$BCT(B focal point is expected to coordinate this
to achieve geographical balance. On the other hand, gender family
is also expected to coordinate this in consultation with the other 20
families to achieve equal gender representation.
In conclusion,
Based on the proposed charters of each family, interim CSB members
\who are expected to serve from February 21, 2003 to August 2003
should make sure each family has its own electoral mechanism and
conduct the election not later than mid August, 2003.
Thank you for your attentions to this draft proposal for your discussion.
[Appendix 2] Consultation Process used for the Tokyo Declaration
The drafting process of the Tokyo Declaration was as follows;
1) The host proposed a multi-sector drafting comittee. On the suggestion
of one government, this proposal was modified to create an "informal
consultation group" asked to produce a non-paper.
This informal consultation group was comprised of representatives of;
Gov't. NGO/Civil Society. Private Sector, International organizations
2) A draft declaration had been prepared before by the conference
secretariat and distributed to delegates.
This paper was used as the basis of intense discussion by the informal
drafting group and resulted in a new "non-paper"
3) The non-paper draft declaration was then put to an informal open
meeting. This meeting edited the paper on a line-by-line basis receiving
contributions from any delegate. The meeting was held for 6 hours.
4) The final "non-paper" document produced by this process was adopted
as an offical draft at the plenary session of Gov't delegates, and they
further negotiated the language.
5) The final official draft was ratified at the closure of the conference by
the Gov't delegates.
Members of the informal al multi-sector drafting group were;
Gov't: Australia, Cambodia, China, India, Iran and Malyaysia
NGO/Civil Society: Japan NGO CCW/Glocom & J-CAFE,
APNGO CCW/One World
Private Sector: Fujitsu, GIIC
Hosts: Gov't of Japan, ESCAP
[Appendix 3] The structure of the Sub-Comm on Substance & Contents
Overall Coordinators: Sally Burch and Bill McGiver
African Caucus:
Asian Caucus:
Latin America Caucus:
European/North American Caucus:
Arab Caucus:
Gender Caucus:
Youth Caucus:
Persons with Disabilities:Hiroshi Kawamura
Indigenous Peoples:Katelin Gillis
Academia and Education Caucus:Beatrice Busaniche
Science & Technology Community:Leszlek Bialy
Media:Ronald Koven, Jacques Briquemont
Trade Unions:
Creators and Active Promotors of Culture:Alex Byrne/Alexis Krikovian
Think Tank:John Gagain
Environment and ICT: Thomas Rudd
Volunteering and New Technologies: Gail Hurley, Viola Krebs
Values and Ethics: Vasanti Patel
E Governance/E Democracy: Rik Panganiban
Health: Ken Dobruskin
Language & Culture: Adel El Zaim
Information Security(CyberCrime): Karen Banks, Veni Markovski
Human Rights(Meryem Marzouli, Rikke Frank Jorgensen)
Communication Rights(YJ Park, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter)
Intellectual Property Rights/Public Sphere(Sean O'Siochru)
Applications-Global Concerns(Myrna Lachenal-Merrit)