>Delivered-To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp
>Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 03:57:22 -0800 (PST)
>From: Rik Panganiban <rikomatic@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Notes from February 27
>To: ajp@glocom.ac.jp, wsis-prep1@cpsr.org
>
>Dear Friends,
>
>These are my more complete notes for February 27,
>integrating notes from Ralf Bendrath for the afternoon
>session. I hope that they are somewhat helpful.
>
>Rik Panganiban
>WFM
>
>................................
>
>Report on Morning Session of Working Group, February
>27, 2003
>by Rik Panganiban, World Federalist Movement
>
>[Note: the decision was taken by the Bureau to open
>the Working Group to observation by other participants
>at the Prepcom. These notes do not include every
>intervention by government representatives, but only
>aim to capture the main issues under discussion.
>Please make reference to the draft action plan
>(WSIS/PC-2/DT/3-E) which is available on the official
>website http://www.itu.org/wsis. The note-taker
>appreciates any corrections and additions be sent to
><rikomatic@yahoo.com.]
>
>
>Chair
>We will work on the action plan until 12:30pm. Then
>present a report to Committee II at 3:00pm.=A0
>
>Several delegations expressed thanks to the chair and
>the the secretariat for the work they had done on the
>draft text.
>
>Malaysia
>Expressed reservations on the time frame for
>objectives to achieved. Very unrealistic for less
>developed countries to achieve.
>
>Switzerland
>This is a valuable document. We expect something very
>specifc in December: specific measures. Aside from
>Para 10, we don=EDt really see specific action. It
>would be better to develop a role for SMEs with
>relation to poverty.=A0
>
>Pakistan
>We should concentrate on specific actions only. Don=EDt
>repeat principles in the principles section.
>Universal access for all.=A0
> Para 35 on the issue of benchmarks: we should be
>realistic. The developing world needs cooperation and
>funding, development of infrastructure, capacity
>building. This section should be carefully
>formulated. The section on cooperation and funding
>should be strengthened.
>
>Iran
>Raised questions about how inputs are decided to be
>put into document or not.
>
>India
>Suggest to remove language that is redundant, needs to
>be action oriented.
>
>China
>para 13 of declaration: there should be a balance
>between rights and responsibility. A balance between
>rights and limitations on those rights. We suggest
>changes 13 to reflect the Covenant on Civil and
>Political Rights.
>
>Thailand
>Suggest to develop statistical indicators to measure
>progress.
>
>Cuba
>Public policy and the role of the market balance.
>Para 21 needs refining. Require funds for development.
>Support democratization of governance of networks
>along the lines of the Brazil proposal. Support the
>non-discrimination proposal of Iran.
>
>Greece
>Delegations have not had time to read the document.
>
>Ghana
>Environmental degradation issues not in the action
>plan.
>
>United States
> Para 6. expresses similar themes in 9, 21, 22. We
>propose to show the linkages among the different
>paragraphs. There is a strong commercial element that
>is important in development of these networks.
> We are happy to see Paras 17,18 and19; the security
>of networks is important. 17 highlights protection
>from civil and criminal offenses. We welcome the
>Council of European convention on cybercrime.
> We wish to associate with the document of the
>Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors.
>
>Nicaragua
>Does not include in enabling environment aspects of
>setting up of solid regulatory framework.
>
>Mali
>Stress importance of a digital solidarity fund.
>Followup processes. We support the =ECobservatory=EE
>proposed by Burundi with specific indicators to
>measure progress to Tunis.
>
>Gabon
>We support the switzerland remarks. Echo proposals of
>Burundi and Mali. Followup must be made more specific
>and concrete. We support the idea of an observatory -
>taking into account NGOs, civil society and funding
>institutions. The place of such funding institutions
>has not been highlighted enough.
>
>Syria
>On enabling environment: we call for establishing of
>an international bureau for internet governance that
>ensures multilateral, trasnparent participation that
>would coordinate top level and domains and the
>assignment of IP addresses.
> On capacity building : we support specific
>initiatives launched to help countries in grave
>economic difficulties in participating in the
>Information Society.
> On International organizations, we support follow up
>initiatives to ensure implementation.
>
>Morocco
>We need more emphasis on funds for development.
>
>El Salvador
>Support statement by switzerland.
>
>Ethiopia
>We need concrete projects; we have to indicate time
>frames. Items in objectives should be
>cross-referenced to other parts of the document.=A0
> We agree with India to categorize responsibilities
>based on the proper level: national, regional, and
>international.
> On capacity building, we support the South Africa
>proposal yesterday. Interest in handheld computers to
>be available to people.
>
>Brazil
>Support for regional traffic hubs, so information does
>not necessarily have to leave our region and return,
>which will reduce cost and tariffs and therefore will
>benefit citizens to access ICTs.
> Para 17 inclusion I appreciate. On issue of security,
>should be implemented only through democratic,
>multilateral, trasnparent, inter-governmental
>governance of internet.
>
>Norway
>We associate with pakistan and US. The action plan
>must be measurable, with benchmarks where possible.
>Para 40: we need to reaffirm needs of developing
>countries to make available assistance commitments.
>Private investments must be encouraged through good
>governance and opening markets.
> Cultural diversity, education, health are important
>objectives.
>
>Japan
>Para 35. benchmarks should be the subject of further
>study.
>Para 40. stress the necessity of political will.
>Section 4 - capacity building . volunteer role should
>be included.
>Enabling environment - express reservations on syrian
>proposal.
>
>China
>Support an international convention on information
>and network security. Benchmarks should be realistic.
> We support the Egypt position.
>
>Chile
>This document is not as balanced as declaration.
>Include para 41 as outlined by Mexico and El Salvador.
>Asking various international organizations to support
>the preparatory work for this summit and agreements
>within this declaration.
>
>Angola
>Agree with US on para 58 in declaration. International
>bureau to govern top level domain names on internet
>along lines suggested by Internet Governance NGO
>Working Group. In objectives - we do have need for
>benchmarks but we don=EDt have many objectives here at
>all.=A0
>
>Zimbabwe
>We have reservations with the current format. Para
>35: these are unrealistic targets. Timeframes are
>very ambitious for developing world; targets difficult
>to attain. An action plan with targets but with no
>milestones or implementation mechanisms is incomplete.
>We need concrete, tangible and realistic targets with
>measures.
>
>Chair
>Explains how we are going to move forward. On
>committee II. Both the declaration and action plan
>need further work to incorporate elements that have
>been raised in the meetings in the document. We have
>heard your input regarding balancing, flow of the
>document, and references to internationally agreed
>texts and commitments like the Millennium Development
>Goals.=A0
> I propose that I be given three weeks to work on the
>two documents. I will incorporate comments raised
>here. Those papers that I produce would be the
>working papers that we are working with. These are
>not the draft declaration and draft action plan.
>These are working documents to get us to the draft
>documents. Status of documents would be a whole big
>bracket.
>
>Iran
>In prepcom2, contributions from prepcom 1 were not
>incorporated clearly, but the compilation document was
>was based on the regional conferences. I hope we can
>raise level of predictability of prepcom three. We
>would be open to night sessions and not leave work to
>prepcom three.
>
>Chair
>On input from observers and civil society. I propose
>that input that has been given that has been given
>from the registered participants be incorporated if
>there are elements that are not already the document.
>That is where we put the square brackets and indicate
>where it comes from. In incorporating the text, if
>there are elements that are not included after
>incorporating government inputs, we include other
>inputs.
>
>Barbados
>I would support that.=A0
>
>India
>We support the line of action. We have uneasiness,
>because we have not had time to receive all government
>inputs.
>
>Greece
>We leave it up to the chair to decided how to
>integrate civil society inputs.
>
>France
>We support position. How will this be dealt with in
>intersessional meeting?
>
>Romania
>Yes, this is useful and productive. However process
>of receiving inputs can get out of control. We support
>taking into account the views expressed during this
>prepcom and not open the door too wide.
>
>Canada
>We support enthusiastically your proposal
>incorporating civil society and private sector
>contributions.
>
>Pakistan
>We must take into account inputs of civil society as a
>whole. Not really sure if helpful if we distinguish
>the source of the input. We should consider all
>inputs given by anyone, and not distinguish between
>government and civil society.
>
>Chair
>That was my hope as well. How do other delegations
>feel about this suggestion?
>
>Cuba
>We have a proposal similar to Pakistan. Any proposal
>from any observer need not necessarily be included;
>the chair must decide which are most useful and which
>are not and only bring in those that are useful. It is
>not useful to say anything about the origin of a
>particular paragraph.
>
>
>Report on Afternoon Session of SubCommittee II
>
>[These notes do not include every intervention by
>government representatives, but only aim to capture
>the main issues under discussion. Please make
>reference to the draft report from the Working Group
>(WSIS/PC-2/DT/5-E) which is available on the official
>website http://www.itu.org/wsis. The note-taker
>appreciates any corrections and additions be sent to
><rikomatic@yahoo.com.]
>
>[notes received from Ralf Bendrath]
>
>Comments from Observers
>
>Report from Lyndall , South African Chair of Working
>Group
>
>Samassekou:
>"Wise men's" identities are secret - will ask them
>until tomorrow if they agree to reveal their identity=EE
>
>Discussion on how to adopt the report to the plenary.
>Decision: "All the text would be in square brackets".
>21.3.: revised report will be published by Lyndall
>
>Paragraph 4c of Draft report of Subcommittee II
>activities. Question on the status of the Observers?
>
>Pakistan:
>- Input: Yes!
>- Negotiation with observers?
>- Ok, but: But under which rule of procedure?
>- would they be bound (legally and politically) by the
>outcome?
>- If yes: We are happy to negotiate with them on a
>level playing field
>
>Brazil:
>- we disagree with putting on same level NGOs and
>Governments
>- we can incorporate their input
>- but we as states have to decide
>
>Lebanon
>- ask lawyers about this!
>
>China
>- rules are clear for status of observers! Follow it!
>
>Mexico:
>- Observers can not be Negotiators!
>- Follow the rules agreed upon at PrepCom1
>
>Samassekou:
>- we are not negotiating yet. We are just drafting the
>input for negotiations
>- react favourably to Pakistan (if understood
>correctly)
>- We are building up new types of relationships
>between the stakeholders of Info-Society. We have to
>take into account all the stakeholders! Therefore we
>are in an unprecedented stage. Question older
>procedures. Observers' roles are changing, because
>their commitment might become indispensable. At the
>moment we are working on the basis of UN tradition,
>but this is a unique summit for a number of reasons. I
>would say "participation" instead of "negotiation". If
>they agree upon plan of action, they have to be
>commited to implement the plan of action. Let us
>change rules before PrepCom3!
>
>Chile:
>- Inputs from observers are important. But we can not
>place them on the same level. We should place civil
>society document in addendum. "Negotiation" is a wide
>term, maybe we have began negotiating long ago.
>
>India:
>- SC has to take its own position, regardless of
>working group.
>- SC should advise chair of working group to produce
>annex to make clear what the inputs of civil society
>are.
>- Observers have to be heard, but not part of
>negotiation process.
>- Cf. ECOSOC resolution on this.
>- Stick to the rules!
>
>Egypt:
>- support India and Bazil. Annex showing exactly what
>observers' inputs were is a good idea.
>
>India:
>Proposal: "The inputs from the observers at the
>meetings that are considered relevant by the chair of
>the working group to be incorporated into the revised
>document, may be spelled out in a separate paper to be
>annexed to the document."
>
>Lyndall:
>- make input by observers in bold or whatever, but
>incorporate. Avoids confusion with other texts, having
>to look at annex and so on. Make them visible, but
>incorporate them.
>- India's suggestion is fine, but what I suggest might
>advance drafting process
>
>Greece on behalf of EU:
>- we can not go along with India
>- cf Lyndall: In the same text, everthing is in
>brackets anyway there. Bold letters for input from
>observers is very good
>- If I were an observer, I would be very disappointed:
>Let them in the room, let them out again, letting them
>speak or not etc. This is not very encouraging. We can
>not agree to annex proposal.
>
>Saudi-Arabia:
>- what is appropriate from the point of view of the
>member states
>- refering to Greece:
>- suggestion for new text 4c:
>- "from the observers at the meetings will be
>considered as appropriate by the chairman of the WG
>will be incorporated (inaudible). These will be in
>bold lines."
>
>Brazil:
>- "annex" generates a problem
>- more appropriate: extra document
>
>Chile:
>- agree with India
>- inputs should be involved
>
>Australia
>- agree with EU, Saudi-Arabia, Lyndall
>- civil society inputs are very consistent with the
>inputs that have been made by member states
>- Saudi-Arabia proposal is good: consistent
>- We do not have to identify where ideas come from, if
>delegates disagree with them, it does not matter who
>made them.
>
>Cuba:
>- we have to reach consensus
>- these debates go far beyond the mandate of the
>summit
>- had been debated in the UN reform process without
>consensus so far
>- GA madated the summit with a clear intergovernmental
>idea in mind
>- Indian proposal is good. Lyndall should decide in
>apractical manner what to include.
>- If EU wants to incorporate the observers' inputs,
>they can put their
>name behind them, and they would be automatically
>included
>
>Gabon
>- we are preparing a summit for the future society
>- we have to revise our thinking and be open for new
>ways and ideas
>- what are the guarantees that the observers do not
>change their views?
>
>Pakistan
>- On one hand: summit that involves a very strong
>contribution from civil society and Private Sector.
>"Summit on Information Technology" (sic!) without
>inventors of tech would be meaningless. But how do we
>incorporate the views and perspectives of PS and civil
>society without infringing on the rules of procedure.
>- 1. We want the input to be fully taken into account
>- 2. Same time: Established norms & standards of
>negotiation must not be compromised. How will the
>observers be incoporated in votes?
>- Let us give some more talk to this.
>- Proposal: Delete 4c)
>
>Samassekou:
>- The question is of content. Not form, but content is
>important! (Cf. Australia)
>
>Chairman:
>- compromise suggestion: "The inputs from the
>observers at the meetings, as appropriate, be taken
>into account by chair of the WG in revising the
>document and be clearly identified."
>
>???
>- we are far from negotiating. Just have a working
>document, which is a great success already. Nobody has
>a monopoly on good ideas! The more people we talk to,
>the more we make sure we get all good ideas! What is
>the risk? There are a number of paragraphs that refer
>to the private sector and civil society. How do we
>want to talk to them? We can decide later on how to
>negotiate on the text.
>
>Greece on behalf of EU:
>- EU will reluctantly accept chairman's proposal!
>
>India:
>- We agree
>
>Angola
>- We agree. We move toward new times. Decision-making
>process must be inclusive.
>Cf. GA Res 56/183 on WSIS, point 5: "Civil Society
>will be involved and private sector will be invited to
>participate!..."
>
>Nigeria
>- We agree
>- cf. Conferences of Montreal and others.
>- This morning we even debated their possible input
>for the plan of action.
>- The day we adopt the observers' text, it will be our
>text! That is the text of heads of governments!
>
>Chair
>Are we agreed on the proposal?
>
>Applause!
>
>All back? Nobody knew what they decided upon.
>
>Lesotho:
>- Observers' separate list or same document? Most want
>to have same document!
>- Go ahead and agree!
>
>Pakistan:
>- delete 4c)
>
>China
>- we agree with Pakistan
>
>US:
>- we reluctantly admit with understanding what it
>means! We welcome inputs from all, but want clarity
>and avoid confusion. Two problems:
>- 1. May be difficult for any chair to interpret the
>phrase "as appropriate".
>- 2. What will the text look like in the end? Text
>could be
>- We have alternative text, but are reluctant to
>submit it. Maybe make list of options for text!
>
>Tanzania:
>- Total confusion here. We are getting scared! We have
>opened a pandora's box! PrepCom3 is coming up.
>- We support Lyndall's proposal.
>
>Argentina:
>- we support Canda and others. Incorporate civil
>society positions into working document.
>- Fairest way: Another document with all civil society
>contributions. Now is not the time to decide which
>will be included and which not.
>
>Saudi-Arabia
>- place in an annex all contributions from civil
>society and PS.
>
>Lyndall:
>- One document will not be possible to achieve. But it
>is just work in progress, all the text is just in
>square brackets.
>- South Africa is ready to take civil society and
>Observers' statements as their own.
>- Result: Delete 4c
>
>
>[end notes of Ralf Bendrath; begin notes by Rik
>Panganiban. Some overlap with Ralf=EDs notes.]
>
>
>Chairman
>Propose to integrate all civil society documents into
>main document.
>
>Algeria
>This is not the first process to include civil society
>- joberg, etc. we can enrich document with what civil
>society can provide. we agreed with the chair to
>include civil society. To have one single document.
>When it is adopted, it will a document of heads of
>state.
>
>Greece
>We have already adopted the proposal.
>
>Brazil
>Please repeat the proposal. We did not agree on
>anything.
>
>Chair
>Propose: =ECThe inputs from observers at meetings, as
>appropriate be taken into account by Working Group in
>devising the documents and be clearly identified.=EE
>
>Lesotho
>The inputs from observers should be shown seperate
>from member states. The preference should be on the
>same document so we don=EDt have to shuttle between two
>documents.
>
>Pakistan
>For the time being, as no consensus is evolving, the
>section 4C should be deleted.
>
>China
>delete 4C
>
>United States
>We have problem understanding what it means. We
>encourage inputs from all. We wish to preseve
>opportunities of national delegations to negotiation
>in an atmosphere that encourages clarity not
>confusion. Two problems: may be difficult for any
>chair no matter how gifted, to interpret the phrase
>=ECas appropriate=EE. Second: I have difficulty knowing
>what the text will actually look like. We have been
>streamlining text. If we add texts by NGOs and
>private sector and states, with only a fine line
>distinguishing them, our task is very difficult.
> We have an alternative to your text. We encourage
>room to consider further what we are deciding. We
>would like a list of options, your text, the US text,
>and other text.
>
>Tanzania
>We are getting toward confusion. We have opened a
>Pandora=EDs Box and we don=EDt know how we are going to
>fill it. We have Prepcom 3, and it could get out of
>hand. We support rules and procedures which should be
>respected. We need to be careful. If we could go back
>to the South African chair was trying to lead us to it
>would be easier.
>
>Argentina
>We support what has been said in this room regarding
>respecting and welcoming all contributions from civil
>society and private sector. We support other
>delegations, like Canada, which wanted to welcome all
>contributions from private sector and civil society.
>We don=EDt have rights as states to qualify which
>contributions which we might think are better. We
>don=EDt have a right to judge.=A0
> In another document we should add all inputs from
>civil society. In successive meetings we can decided
>which contributions will be retained. Now is not the
>time to decide which are going to be included and
>which aren=EDt. We must include all without judgement.
>They should be circulated to all states.
>
>Saudi Arabia
>I=EDd like to remind you of the fact that your proposal
>echoes what was proposed by Saudi Arabia. It was a
>compromise proposal. Our proposal recieved support of
>other delegations. We considered what was said by
>Pakistan and Sameseko. He said this summit was
>unique. We listened to input from the US. We think
>we have before us the best solution possible.
> =ECAs appropriate=EE language - who makes decision? We
>should place in the annex all contributions of civil
>society and private sector in order to observe
>principles of transparency.
> This is a working document. Governmentws can accept
>or reject proposed text.
>
>Chair of working group - South Africa
>It is clear that objective that we would like to see:
>one document. Is not able to achieve here. This is
>not in line with the rules of procedure. The document
>is a work in progress. All the text is in square
>brackets. We value input of observers. I would
>propose as South African delegate that if civil
>society and private sector who have made their input
>here on the plan of acdtion and declaration, entered
>as =ECunder administration.=EE
>
>Romania
>We do not understand successive attempts to deprive
>delegations of intervention.=A0
>
>Saudi Arabia
>On text =ECparticipation of observers will be considered
>as appropriate by chairperson.=EE Does not mean we are
>ignoring proposals of civil society. All
>contributions annexed to document. We need to know if
>our proposal has support.
>
>Chair
>It is difficult to find language that is acceptable to
>everyone. There is support for a parallel paper
>
>Secretary General of ITU - Mr. Itsumi
>To give every delegation the floor may confuse more.
>The issue is clear. All delegations want inputs from
>observers should be included. How to include those
>inputs into document - in a seperate document or in
>same document, identify observer comments from
>government text. Fairly technical problem, behind
>which is political meaning. Difficult to discuss in
>this late hour in this large forum. At bureau meeting
>we will have opportunity to discuss how to deal with
>this. We should square bracket this area, and discuss
>this in bureau in a professional way, with a small
>number of delegations representing regions, and
>proposal of bureau presented tomorrow to plenary
>meeting.=A0
>
>India
>We are slightly on a wrong track. Para 4 a, b, and c
>are factual position of what the working has
>recommended. Now the working gropu exercise is over.
>Now the subcommittee has to take note of their report.
>It is in para 5 where we can say that subcommittee is
>unable to come to a conclusion on issue of how chair
>is to deal with observer inputs. We could discuss
>this in plenary tomorrow.
>
>South Africa
>we have no problem with ITU proposal. We reserve
>right to present our document.
>
>Lebanon
>Romania had a comment to make, and I would be happy to
>accept it. I support South Africa proposal.
>
>Barbados??????
>I support one document. Recognize that things have
>changes. Civil society, private sector and NGOs have
>a critical role to play in this conference. And that
>was the intention of those who set up this conference.
>
>Iran
>President of Prepcom encouraged state to include NGOs
>on their delegations. Each state has incorporated in
>their delegations NGOs which they deemed appropriate.
>Others have not.
> The inputs of civil society are appreciated. We know
>that nobody is telling us that they have to
>incorporated. Let us take them into account. And
>stop it at this point.
>
>Chair
>I propose to put 4C in bracket and move forward.
>
>Romania
>I am quite surprised to receive the floor. We are not
>trying to break the rules of procedure. The document
>is not binding, it is a working document. There is no
>contradiction to incorporating input of civil society
>and private sector. There is no breaking of rules.
> My delegation would support any consensus. But would
>deplore if this body after all and will turn back to
>what was done in prepcom 1 and not involve more
>substantial involvement of civil society. Accept the
>lowest common denominator.
>
>Greece
>Follow Barbados. As bureau deliberates on this,
>please address how in one document to reflect all
>comments, from governments and civil society.
>
>India
>I have difficulty if any of para 4 can be put into
>brackets. That report has been clear. It is a
>factual position. If we put anything in brackets it
>is para 5. What is action to be taken on report of
>working group. Be clear where bracket is being put.
>If bracket is on C then the working group report is
>not yet final and wants the working group report to be
>changed. The working group report is there, it is
>over. The subcommittee takes a factual note of what
>the working group has said. In 5, they decide what
>they are going to do with the report.
>
>Pakistan
>We agree with India. Qualifier on para 5. The
>subcommittee endorsed the recommendations made by the
>working group as contained in 4 a and b above. As
>regards 4c, the subcommittee could not reach a
>consensus and recommends that this matter be
>considered further.
>
>Greece
>I don=EDt think that the proposal is acceptable. There
>is no date when it will be considered. The bureau
>should take it up tonight. All we need is more time.
>Bureau take it up tonight to work out a satisfactory
>proposal.
>
>chair
>I should close the meeting now.=A0
>
>Secretary
>We will take up deliberations tomorrow at 10am. We
>will meet in plenary.
>
>Chair
>We will continue discussions in the bureau. Propose
>to put 4c and 5 in square brackets. Express gratitude
>for your cooperation. This meeting is adjourned.
>
>
>
>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>RIK PANGANIBAN rikomatic@yahoo.com
>Mobile number (Switzerland): +41 764 733 274
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
--