INFORMAL DOCUMENT

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 

This is a very short up-date on today's meetings of the 'closed'
intersessional negotiation group.

Civil society people got a briefing with Ambassador Karklins between 9:15
and 10:00. In addition to his modus operandi for today's meeting, Ambassador
Karklins mentioned that a new proposal from ITU / UNESCO would be officially
circulated (but at the end of the end we have not it yet). We don't know at
this stage if there would be any working group created to find consensus on
articles still under discussion on implementation and follow-up (to be
discussed on Wednesday, depending on the actual work on the Political
Chapeau and Chapter 2).
 

From those who attended some parts of the meetings, we heard that Karklins
had a very fast first reading of the bracketed paragraphs of the Political
Chapeau (please see Document

WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/12 : ) in order to streamline it, with the hope to get it
stronger and more focused, by deleting all the elements directly copied and
pasted from the Geneva documents. He did not get consensus on this and
therefore get back to Article 1 to start negotiations.

 

Discussions among States were of course stuck on some contentious issues
(State sovereignty, multi-stakeholder partnerships, debt and trade related
issues), but they went pretty fast on this and many articles were agreed
upon with some changes (paragraphs 1-2; 6 to 8; 10; 13 to 18; 20-21; 23 to
27; 29 to 31; 36; 39; 40 to 42; 44).

Negotiations will continue for compromise texts and need to come back for
para. 3 to 5, 9; 12; 22; 28; 32 to 35 (with main problem on 32 and 33); 37;
39; 43 and 45.

Paragraphs 11, 12 and 19 are to be merged.

Negotiation group still is supposed to get a finalized agreement tomorrow
afternoon on Political Chapeau and Chapter 2, in order to deal with
Implementation and Follow-up mechanism on Wednesday.

We also had a meeting with the UK / EU mission after the afternoon session
during we get an overall report on today's discussion.

Best regards, 

Philippe Dam
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat 

 

This is a very short up-date on the meetings of the 'closed' intersessional
negotiation group (Tuesday 25 Oct. 2005).

Morning meeting: Financial mechanisms (Chapter 2)


The discussion was mainly based on WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/27

(www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt27.pdf) which contains the text agreed
at PrepCom-2, PrepCom-2 alternate text, and Sub-Committee B's Chairman
possible proposals further to PrepCom-3.

 

Negotiations were mainly stuck on some texts proposed by G77+China

 

Paragraph 20:

2 options:         - G77 (please see attached scanned G77 proposals
presented this morning)

                        - Chair's possible proposal slightly amended.

Discussions will continue at later stage

 

New paragraph proposed by G77 after para 20 (transfer of technology)

New paragraph proposed by G77 after para 27 (corporate responsibility of
trans-national corporations)

Discussion was engaged on the content of these proposed articles, but no
consensus was found on the wording. In addition, it was not supposed to be
possible to add new text during PrepCom-3 negotiation group, so that the
continuation of the discussion is suspended to a decision on this after
consultation with capitals.

 

Paragraph 33:

This article will be revisited at late stage since no agreement was found on
the wording of this paragraph, but discussions will continue around Chair's
possible proposal, with consideration to the G77 proposal.

 

Paragraph 37c)

Open source software: to avoid any repetition with para 21 of the political
Chapeau, States agreed to delete this article.

 

Paragraph 37f)

No consensus was found and we still have 3 options to be discussed further
at later stage: 

-          G77 proposal 

-          Chair's proposed text

-          Text adopted at PrepCom-2

 

Paragraph 37g)

Text agreed as follows: 

"37 g) Multilateral, regional and bilateral development organizations should
consider the utility of creating a virtual forum for the sharing of
information by all stakeholders on potential projects, on sources of
financing and on institutional financial mechanisms."

Deletion of second and third sentence as proposed by the UK

 

Paragraph 37h)

Text agreed as follows (with amendment to delete domestic from Senegal and
Iran): 

37 h) Enabling developing countries to be increasingly able to generate
funds for ICTs and to develop financial instruments, including trust funds
and seed capital adapted to their economies."

 

Paragraph 37j)

Text agreed as follows (amendment by Egypt: "rapid response with the view to
support.")

"37 j) Multilateral, regional and bilateral development organizations should
consider cooperating to enhance their capacity to provide rapid response
with the view to support developing countries that request assistance with
respect to ICT policies;"

 

Paragraph 37l)

States agreed to delete this para (proposed by Brazil) after quite long
discussion on neutrality of technology and the notion of universal service.

 

In summary:

Agreed paragraphs: 37 g, h, j.

Agreed to delete paragraphs 37c and 37 L

No agreement on 20, 33, 37f, and newly proposed paragraphs 

 

 

Afternoon session: Political Chapeau:

 

Para. 3: Report from drafting group lead by Russia

It had not been possible to reach a text that was acceptable to all.
Agreement may be possible within broader agreement on sensitive paragraphs.

 

Para. 4-5: Report from drafting group lead by Norway and Iran

Norway will come up with new text later on.

 

Para. 9: New compromise proposed by Russia:

"We acknowledge the leading role of governments in the WSIS process, while
reaffirming the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder, as outlined
(in paragraph 3) of the Geneva Plan of Action." 

 

Para. 12: Karklins is leading consultations on new para 12 to replace
existing paras 11, 12 and 19.

 

Para. 22: Egypt makes new proposal based on consultations:

"We urge governments using the potential of ICTs, to create public systems
of information on laws and regulations, envisaging a wider development of
public access points and supporting the broad availability of this
information." (almost agreed)

 

Para 25 and 28: Drafting group lead by Australia.

New para 25: "We recognize the role of ICTs in the protection and in
enhancing the development of children. We will strengthen action to protect
the children from abuse, and defend their rights, in the context of ICTs. In
that context, we emphasize that the best interest of the child are a primary
consideration." (Agreed)

New para 28: "We reaffirm our commitment to empowering young people as key
contributors to building an inclusive Information Society. We will actively
engage youth in innovative ICT-based development programmes and widen
opportunities for youth to be involved in e-strategy processes." (Agreed)

 

Para 32-33: Karklins presented a new proposal based on already agreed
language, but his proposal did not gain support.

A new drafting group was formed around El Salvador.

 

Para 34 and 35: Karklins asked if the governments could agree on one of the
two almost identical paragraphs.

UK (EU) proposed new para 35 based on language in the UNESCO convention: 

"We undertake to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions,
notably by the development and use of local languages ICTs which enhances
the involvement of all peoples in the Information Society."

US proposed a compromise for para 34 with a few chances: amendment "local
and indigenous languages" and change of "protection" to "preservation".

EU will lead further consultations on that.

 

Para 37 and 38: Karklins proposed removal of brackets in para 37 and
deletion of para 38.

Amendment was proposed "... financial, in accordance with Chapter 2, to
enable.". 

Para 37 was agreed (unless UK(EU) or US make an objection tomorrow morning)

 

Para 39: US re-opens agreed para.

It is proposed that para 39 in Geneva Declaration of Principles is copied
and the first sentence of existing para 39 amended.

Governments will consult capitals on this.

 

Para 40: US propose to amend ".the private sector and civil society based
on.", but withdraws its "stylistic correction" to prevent that the already
agreed paragraph is reopened.

 

Para 43: Karklins suggests deletion of the paragraph as the issue is already
covered. However, several governments want to keep two paras arguing that
there are two different ideas behind them: Access for all people (with focus
on people with disabilities) provided by vs. access for all countries. 

Honduras (G77) is asked to come up with a proposal that will take into
account the concerns expressed e.g. by Norway on the unclear formulations of
the text.

 

Para 45: A shortening of the paragraph is agreed:

"We reaffirm our strong resolve to develop and implement an effective and
sustainable response to challenges and opportunities of building a truly
global Information Society that benefits all our people."

 

Tomorrow's negotiations will focus on Implementation and Follow-up.

(Notes taken by Jette Madsen and Philippe Dam)

 



Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 

This is a short up-date on the meetings of the 'closed' intersessional
negotiation group (Wednesday 26 Oct. 2005  Morning session 10-13 ).

The meeting started very late (10:50).


Implementation and follow-up (Chapter 1 and 4)

Ambassador Karklins started the meeting by presenting the document DT-26,
circulated two weeks ago. This document contains the proposal to change the
structure and draft it in one chapter on implementation and follow-up. Based
on this assumption, he drafted proposal contained in document DT-26. In its
part on implementation and follow up, it is based on DT-9 Rev. 2. 

Mentioning that some delegations would need more time to analyse the new
proposed document DT-26 on Chapter 1 and 4 (Implementation and Follow-up),
which was circulated two weeks ago. 

He therefore proposed to proceed with Political Chapeau and Chapter 2 before
dealing with Chapter 1 and 4 this afternoon.

Back to DT-12 Rev 2. (political Chapeau)

Paragraph 9, after further consultation yesterday

Based on the new proposal from Russia, some delegations raised concerns
about the responsibility of states and other stakeholders (UK, Canada). 

Karklins called for revisiting this paragraph at later stage

Paragraph 12, replacing 11, 12 and 19

Discussion is still under way in drafting group and we could not deal with
that paragraph.


Paragraph 22

Agreed with the text as discussed yesterday after support from capitals: "We
urge governments using the potential of ICTs, to create public systems of
information on laws and regulations, envisaging a wider development of
public access points and supporting the broad availability of this
information.". 

 

Paragraph 32 and 33 (consultations by El Salvador)

El Salvador is conducing on going consultation, further information would be
available this afternoon only.

 

Paragraph 34 and 35 (cultural diversity, by UK)

UK: drafting group today, but still need to consult capitals over lunch
time. 

 

Paragraph 37

It was adopted ad referendum pending the clearance of the capitals
yesterday. 

UK requests a little more time at this time, and we would come back to this
later on.

 

Paragraph 39

The negotiation on this paragraph was reopened yesterday by the USA. On the
contrary, G77 supported that the wording initially agreed yesterday on
public policy should be maintained. G77 would like to see references to para
40 of the Geneva Declaration (enabling international environment for foreign
direct investment) to the existing reference to it paragraph 39 (rule of law
and public policy). We were sometimes closed to a reinterpretation on the
text of the Geneva Declaration paragraphs 39 and 40.

 

Ambassador Karklins finally proposed a drafting group to be coordinated by
Brazil and the USA, mandated to come with consensus proposals by 24 hours.

 

Paragraph 43 (consultation by Honduras)

Honduras asserted that the position of the G77 was that this wording for
para 43 should stay as it was. No consensus could be found on this question
of international cooperation. 

The chair recommended a next reading after consultation with capitals.

 

Paragraph 45

The G77 demanded the reopening of the negotiation on this paragraph, and to
keep the 1st sentence deleted yesterday, and putting the last sentence,
agreed yesterday, as a new paragraph 45A. UK, Canada and the USA agreed to
reopen this paragraph and to discuss it later after the negotiation groups
decide on an implementation mechanism.


Conclusion:

We removed one bracket from political chapeau (para 22)

Establishment of a new group by USA and Brazil on paragraph 39.

Reopening of discussion on one paragraph (para 45)

No progress on other paragraphs

 

 

DT-27 (financial mechanisms and G77 proposals)

Delegations accepted to open discussion on new proposed paragraphs 20A and
27A, but without guarantee that a solution could be found in the end, since
it was previously agreed that no new idea would be add during the
negotiation groups.

 

UK stressed that if the negotiation group agreed to discuss new paragraphs,
we would need other stakeholder to be allowed to make inputs on this since
it is important that they could propose their views before States discuss.

 

Please refer to the scanned document we attached yesterday with G77 new
proposals.

 

New paragraph 20A (transfer of technology)

After a discussion on the use of "preferential terms" or "on mutually agreed
terms", Ambassador Karklins proposed to leave "preferential terms" in
brackets so that this new paragraph would be revisited at later stage.

 

New paragraph 27A (trans-national corporations)

The decision focused on the new concepts of "corporate developmental /
social responsibility" and "responsibility of trans-national corporations"
(which is regularly discussed in Geneva in the context of the Sub-Commission
on Human Rights). 

Acknowledging that it would be difficult to get an agreement on this within
two days, Ambassador Karklins proposed to stop here the discussion, and
demanded the other delegations to circulate its alternate wording.

 

Paragraph 33

Agreed


Philippe Dam



 

Find below a summary of today's afternoon session in the intersessional

negotiation group.

Best regards,

Jette Madsen


Wednesday 26 October, afternoon session

 

After the delegations had had time to have a look at DT26 again, they 
agreed
to

use it as a basis for negotiations. Elements from DT9 will be brought in

whenever a delegation feels that a part is missing.

 

In the beginning of the meeting, Canada stated that it did not felt
comfortable

discussing multi-stakeholder participation in the implementation without 
the

presence of other stakeholders.This was supported by UK (EU).

 

The EU also addressed that an ITU proposal was made available in the 
back of
the

room. The EU stated that it was not fair that one organisation had been
given

the privilege to make a proposal in the intergovernmental meeting and 
that
they

hoped this privilege would be extended to other stakeholders. The chair
replied

that he would inform the stakeholders about this at his briefing 
tomorrow

morning.

 

Reading of para 1-10:

 

Para 1-6 was agreed with few, not very substantial changes.

 

Para 7: Para. 9 was moved back in the end of para 7, so as para 7 now 
stands
as

para 4 stood in DT9. Agreed.

 

New paras 7A and 7B: G77 proposed that new 6bis from DT9 was inserted as 
a
new

para 7A. US preferred the language in newest 6bis. As there was not
agreement

on this, Karklins proposed to let both paras stay in the text in 
brackets.

 

Para 8:

Agreed

 

Para 9: moved to 7(see above)

 

Para 10: Iran wanted 93mutually-agreed terms94 to be conditioned to 
the
results of

negotiations on para 20 in chap. 2. US would not commit to this. Para 
was
not

agreed.

 

New paras 10a and 10b: Honduras proposed to insert 6bis and 9B from DT6
after

para 10.Not agreed.

 

93Conceptual reading94 of para 23-30:

With about an hour left, the chair proposed to move to paras 23-30 for a

93conceptual reading94 to find out whether governments could agree in
principle

on these paragraphs.

 

There was general support to the conceptual framework of the text. In 
the

following is highlighted some of the positions that were expressed.

 

Chile noted that its proposal on follow-up that was not reflected in the 
new

text:

[49A: We request ECOSOC, through its Commission on Science and 
Technology
for

Development, to oversee the systematic coordination, review and policy
debate

of the Geneva and Tunis outcomes of the World Summit on the Information

Society.]] The Chilean proposal was supported by Nicaragua and El 
Salvador.

 

El Salvador also recalled the solution in the GFC paper, where UNSG is 
asked
to

set up coordination within a specific date.

 

Ghana (African group) said that they were working on a redrafting of the
Annex,

which they will submit tomorrow.

 

UK (EU) stated that their basic building blocs was

-           Implementation in a system wide and coordinated way, which
should follow

resolution 57/270B.

-           let it be up to each UN agency to decide for themselves how 
to
implement

(within this reference to stakeholders). No need to blueprint role for 
any

specific agency (in the briefing with EU after the meeting, it was 
clarified

that this meant no Annex)

-           SG should coordinate the implementation between agencies

-           Not miss experiences of agencies or multistakeholders

-           Follow-up within ECOSOC

-           Need to look for a way to fit in a multistakeholder approach
with this

 

At the briefing with EU after the meeting, the UK expressed that the EU
liked

the idea of the Chilean proposal and would like to see the proposal 
included
in

the text in brackets to keep it in the discussion.

 

Russia: in favour of approach building on experiences of UN agencies.

 

Egypt, Iran and Brazil wanted more weight to the follow-up of the WSIS
process than reports to ECOSOC.

Jette Madsen






Today the intersessional negotiation Group went through paras 11-31 in 
DT26
(Implementation and Follow-up). You can find reports from the morning 
and
afternoon session below.

Best regards,
Jette Madsen


Intersessional Negotiation Group, Thursday 27 October

At the morning briefing with Amb Karklins, we were today informed that,
following the request from EU yesterday, it would now be possible for 
all
stakeholders to have their position papers placed in the back of the 
room.

MORNING SESSION

At the morning session, the delegations went through para 11-20 in DT26. 
At the
beginning of the meeting, Karklins reminded that only 12 hours remained 
to
conclude on Political Chapeau, Financing Mechanisms, and Implementation 
and
Follow-up. He asked the delegations to be as constructive as possible 
and
not
come in with random suggestions at this late stage. Night sessions will 
not
be
a possibility in respect for the delegates who celebrated Ramadan. 
Further,
he
reminded that they yesterday had agreed that paragraphs from DT9 would 
stay
in
brackets to be reviewed in a second reading.

Para 11, 11a, 11b, 11c were agreed with few, mostly editorial changes. 
In
para
11c, a reference to 93older persons94 was inserted.

Para 11d (training and education of women):
Russia had strong difficulties with the paragraph. They wanted the 
reference
to
93civil society representatives94 deleted and questioned the meaning 
of
93e-government process94. Either the paragraph should be deleted or 
made
clearer.
The chair asked Russia to work on the text and come with new language by
tomorrow morning.

Iran asked that 7p from DT9 could be brought into the text. On this the
chair
replied that 7p repeats para 10 in DT26. After having reconsidered its
proposal, Iran agreed that it was covered in para 10, but that it was
pending
on the outcomes of the negotiations of para 10.

Para 11e
Thailand proposed insertion of 93and use of assistive technologies94 
(agreed).

Para 11f:
Agreed with slight editorial changes

UK asked that old 7d on community volunteering could be included from 
DT9.
US
supported re-incorporation and will lead consultations on how it can be
done.

Paras 11g, h, i and j was agreed with few editorial changes.

Paras 11k (educational, scientific and cultural institutions):
US proposed to change 93affordable94 to 93free94 and that 93and 
community
connectivity94 should be amended after 93improve it-literacy94. Cuba 
and
Honduras
opposed the change of 93affordable94 to 93free94. It was decided 
that US would
work
on it and come up with a proposal at three.

Para 11l:
Language was changed so that it is consitent with para 35 in political
chapeau:
93local and/or indigenous languages.94
UK(EU) proposed the amendment 93and improving quality e-content94, but 
Canada
stated that the proposal did not make sense in this paragraph. It was
decided
that EU should present a new paragraph on quality e-content at three.
11l was agreed.

Para 11m:
There were some discussions on if the paragraph should only refer to
traditional
media as some delegations argued the original purpose of the paragraph 
had
been,
or if the reference to new media should stay. Further, the delegates 
went
into a
lengthy discussion on a comma. In the end, the paragraph was agreed with 
an
amendment of 93inter alia94 in front of radio and television.

Para 11n on freedom of press will await the results of consultations 
lead by
Norway and Iran on para 4-5 in Political Chapeau

Para 11o:
US wanted a reference to 93proper disposal of ICT waste94
Egypt argued that as many developing countries do not have the resources 
to
do
this, text about assisting developing countries in addressing this 
problem
should be added. Egypt will come up with new language.

Para 11p:
Discussion between Iran and US on the concept of 93co-regulatory94. 
Chair asks
the
two to exchange views bilaterally.

New para 11q:
Chile came up with a new proposal:
93Promoting the development of advanced research networks of national,
regional
and international levels in order to improve collaboration in science,
technology and higher education.94
Karklins stated that on procedural grounds, he would refuse the 
proposal,
but if
everybody was willing to accept the proposal as it stood, he would allow 
it
to
be included. Objection from one single government would mean deletion.
The proposal was circulated in paper form and in the end of the meeting;
Karklins gave governments 15 seconds to object. As nobody objected, the
proposal was adopted referendum.

Para 12 with subparagraphs (disaster reduction)
Australia stated that it had many changes to the para and to save time, 
they
proposed a short meeting between interested delegations. Pakistan on 
behalf
of
Asia wanted to introduce old o+n from DT9. It was decided that Australia 
and
Pakistan would lead informal consultations and present a result 
tomorrow.

Para 13 (Child helplines):
EU and US wanted to take out the specific reference to 3 and 4-digits
(technical
problem)
Russia found the word 93undertake94 too strong and proposed it 
replaced with
the
less binding 93recommend94 or 93seek94
India raised the question of who will pay and proposed to insert 
language on
93mobilise resources94
Canada wanted to educate children on how to use emergency lines also
Chair proposed simplification: 93We seek to make available children 
phone
lines
in each country.94
Iran stated that developing countries don92t have the resources and 
that
resource
problem should be accommodated, whereas US had a problem with 93we seek 
to
mobilise resources94, if we meant the governments. Finally, it was 
decided
that
will lead consulations on this.

Para 14 was agreed without discussion.

Para 15 was not touched as Karklins is consulting governments on this
paragraph.
Para 16: agreed

Para 17: Karklins has conducted informal consultations on this also and
results
leaved him to believe that the paragraph as drafted will be acceptable. 
Only
El
Salvador had a problem with the paragraph and it was decided that the
delegate
from here should consult his capital.
Agreed ad referendum

Para 18-19:
Russia insisted on inserting a reference to 93the leading role of
governments94.
This was opposed by Canada and USA and the paragraphs were left square
bracketed.

Para 20:
South Africa wanted 93framework94 changed to 93mechanism94 and was 
supported on
this
by Iran, Brazil and Cuba (the latter arguing that the term already had 
been
used
in para 61 in Geneva Declaration of Principles) whereas Canada opposed. 
It
was
decided to move on and leave the two possibilities in brackets as the
discussion reflected more substantive differences.


AFTERNOON SESSION:

In the afternoon, the negotiations group came to the more contentious
paragraphs
on international implementation. However, the session started with
presentation
of new text that had been drafted on community volunteering, quality
e-content
and children helplines

New para 11r: 93Promoting volunteering service at the community level 
to help
maximize the developmental impact of ICTs.94 (agreed)

New para 11s: 93Strengthening the creation of quality e-content and
innovative
applications at national, regional and international level.94 The EU 
proposal
did not gain support and the EU was asked to reconsider its proposal.

New para 13: 93We seek to make available child help lines in all 
countries
and to
mobilise appropriate resources94
UK expressed surprise that the delegations could not at least agree on
freephone, international standards and all phones in principle. Karklins
will
continue consultations.

Then they continued from para 21 (implementation at the national level).
Cuba proposed replacement of framework with mechanism. Both were kept in
brackets and the paragraph 93agreed conditionally94, meaning that the 
final
decision on the terminology would depend on the rest of the document.

Then the negotiations moved back to new paras 10a and 10b (newest 6bis 
and
9B
that yesterday was included from DT9 on a request from G77):

Para10a: 93International and regional organizations should assess and 
report
regularly on universal accessibility of nations to ICTs, with the aim of
creating equitable opportunities for the growth of ICT sectors of 
developing
countries.94
Was agreed as it stands in 28c in Geneva Plan of Action.

Para 10b: 93Appropriate indicators and benchmarking, including 
community
connectivity indicators, should clarify the magnitude of the digital 
divide,
in
both its domestic and international dimensions, and keep it under 
regular
assessment, and tracking global progress in the use of ICTs to achieve
internationally agreed development goals, including those of the 
Millennium
Declaration.94
Australia proposed insertion of a sentence in the end: 93The 
development of
these
should take place in a collaborative, cost-effective and non-duplicative
fashion.94
The paragraph will be revisited in the next reading.

Para 22 was agreed without major changes.

Para 23:
Canada proposed a reference to res. 57/270B in the chapeau to the 
paragraph.

Para 24 (Intergovernmental implementation and follow-up)
Iran proposed a new amendment in the end of para 24:
93In this regard, bearing in mind paras 11 and 12 of UN Res. 270B, 
request
the UN
Secretary General to establish within the Chief Executive Board (CEB), a 
UN
Group on Information Society (UNGIS), chaired by ITU in collaboration 
with
UNESCO and UNDP, with the mandate to facilitate the implementation,
evaluation
and follow-up of WSIS outcomes and to report to the coordination segment 
of
ECOSOC, for further follow up through functional commission on science 
and
technology.94

The delegations seemed to like the proposal, although some of them said 
they
would have to read it more carefully.

EU made another proposal: 93The systemwide organisation of 
implementation
activities should follow res. 270 para 11 and 12. We therefore invite 
all
international organisation the relevance of their activities85 Request
Secretary
General to submit a report by July 2006 that includes concrete proposals 
on
coordination as part of annual report to ECOSOC.94 (quotation is 
incomplete)
The proposal could substitute language both in 26 and 24.

Chile asked for flexibilty for Secretary General to decide which
institutions,
as it might be others than UNESCO, UNDP and ITU and proposed the 
Commission
on
Science and Technology as the coordinating body. SG should submit an 
annual
report on implementation to the ECOSOC.

Egypt would preferred reporting to UN assembly 93to widen the scope94 
and
stated
that it maybe will come up with language tomorrow.

Para 27 (Multistakeholder implementation):
The African group wanted to delete the paragraph as they found the 
reference
to
both 93international94 and 93bottom-up94 inconsistent. However, they 
wanted to
keep
the Annex that is referred to in para 27.  Brazil, El Salvador, Cuba, 
Iran
and
Japan wanted to keep both para 27 and the Annex.

On the other side, Canada, Australia and US wanted to delete the Annex 
and
the
reference to moderation/facilitation by UN agencies in the end of para 
27.
UK (EU) would also like to delete the annex and proposed a merging of 27 
and
29:
93Multistakeholder implementation should be bottom-up. Where 
appropriate it
should be carried out along the action lines and themes of the Plan of
Action
and facilitated by UN agencies. The experience of, and activities 
undertaken
by
UN agencies in the WSIS process 96 notably ITU, UNESCO and UNDP 96 
should
continue
to be used to their fullest extent. It should not require the creation 
of
any
new operation bodies.

Chair proposed that the delegations would meet in the Canadian mission
tomorrow
morning for informal discussions on Annex + paras 27 and 29.

Para 28 (indicators):
US and Australia proposed deletion.
Honduras (G77) did not wanted complete deletion 96 language should be
incorporated in 31.
Chile proposed to change the structure of the text and place paras 31-34
before
para 20.

Para 29
Australia and Canada expressed interest in the EU proposal (see above).

Russia propose amendment to para 29: 93these agencies should play the 
leading
managerial role in organizing activities along action lines as mentioned 
in
the
Annex.94

In relation to the discussions on para 29, Canada expressed that it was
increasingly concerned that the governments were discussing 
multistakeholder
implementation without the other stakeholders. In consequence, they 
should
not
take any decisions on multistakeholder implementation before PrepCom-3,
where
stakeholders can express their opinions.
Chair answered that he met with stakeholders every morning and that 
papers
were
available in the back of the room as a reminder of stakeholder 
positions.

Para. 30:
EU proposes to move the paragraph higher up as it sets the premise for
creating
the modalities of multistakeholder activities.

Chile asked that its proposal on the Commission on Science and 
Technology
could
be inserted in the text. Karklins replied that he believed the Chilean
proposal
in part already was covered in the Iranian proposal

Para 31:
Ghana wants to change 93welcome94 to 93note94 in front of 93the 
launch of the
Digital
Opportunity Index.94 Canada object to this 96 either we welcome all or 
do not
mention any of tehm
Honduras (G77) propose inclusion of elements from para 28 included in 
para
31.
Karklins replied that it might be relevant to have one paragraph on
measuring
icts and one on digital opportunity index. He will try to propose text 
that
takes this into account tomorrow morning.
Iran would like a reference to UN statistical commission.

Tomorrow morning, the session will start with outstanding issues in
political
chapeau and chapter 2, and then the negotiation group will move on to
implementation and follow-up.




Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 


Find below a report from today's morning session of the Negotiation Group.

Best regards,

Jette

Intersessional Negotiation Group,  28 October - morning session

 

This morning the Negotiation Group began with outstanding issues in
Political Chapeau and Chapter 2. Then the governments carried on with
Implementation and Follow-up and finished the first reading of DT26.

 

Political Chapeau

 

The delegations agreed that the name of the document will be "Tunis
Commitment."

 

Para 3 was not discussed as agreement on this will probably need to be found
within a bigger package.

 

Para 4-5:

Norway reported that informal consultations had identified where the
governments disagree, but agreement had not been reached yet. Ghana had
proposed to draft a new text based on para 4 and incorporating elements from
para 5. Karklins concluded that it would be difficult to reach agreement on
this paragraph today and decided to postpone the negotiations to the first
day of the resumed PrepCom-3

 

Para. 9 on the "leading role of governments"

UK stated that they had conducted consultations, but they had not come to
agreement with the delegation (Russia) that put the paragraph. The paragraph
will go to Tunis in brackets.

 

Para. 12:

The chair had conducted consultations with the most interested governments
on this paragraph and chair's proposed text was agreed without discussion.

 

Para new 23A (former 43):

Agreed referendum as US asked for the possibility to come back later on the
day.

 

Para 32-33:

El Salvador reported that they needed a little more time to come up with a
language. The Negotiation Group will revisit it at 3 pm.

 

Para 34 and 35:

UK presented a new para 35, mentioning that one nation still had
reservations on the second part of the new paragraph. The new EU proposal
was not adopted, but the delegations agreed to let it substitute the
existing paras 34 and 35

 

Para 37:

EU could not accepted the word "commit" and proposed it replaced with
"strive". Egypt objected to this and was asked by the chair to come with new
proposal and consult with EU on it before 3 pm.

 

Para 38:

deleted

 

Para 39: New proposal by Brazil and US.

Agreed without discussions.

 

Para 45 was not discussed as it is pending on the results of the
negotiations on implementation and follow-up.

 

Summary:

Para 12, 23A and 39 was agreed or agreed referendum. 

Para 3, 4-5, 9, new 35 and 45 will go to Tunis in brackets.

The negotiation group will revisit 32-33 and 37 this afternoon.

 

 

Financing Mechanism

 

In chapter 2 three outstanding issues remained: para 20, new 27B and 37F

 

Para 20 and 20A was not resolved. Para 20 will go to Tunis with "transfer of
technology" in square brackets and in para 20A it is still not agreed on
what terms the technology transfer shall take place. The developing
countries insisted on "preferential terms", whereas developed countries
wanted "mutually agreed terms". Both Egypt and the chair came up compromise
proposals and despite a long discussion, agreement was not reached

 

27B on good corporate governance of Transnational Corporations will be
revisited at 3 pm, where the G77 again will be asked to agree to delete it.
US, Canada, Israel and Australia asked for deletion and UK (EU) stated that
also CCBI had asked for deletion. Karklins asked the G77, if they could
accept a deletion as it would be difficult to reach agreement also at the
resumed PrepCom. Honduras stated that they would have to discuss it within
G77.

 

37F:

Agreed with deletion of "existing".

 

 

Implementation and follow-up (DT26)

 

Para 31 (indicators):

The chair proposed new text, where the paragraph was divided into two new
subparas. On a request from G77 new 10B (9B from DT9) had been moved to the
section on indicators. 

 

Subpara a) and b) was merged.

Subpara e) was deleted as almost identical to c)

Dominican Republic propose a reference to "indicators that measure gender
digital divide in its various dimensions" in 31, but it was proposed that
this should be incorporated in 11d instead, when this was revisited
tomorrow.

 

31A:

Mali and Senegal had reservations on 31A, as they did not want to approve
the Digital Opportunity Index, before it had been launched.

UK proposed a rewording that was placed in square brackets

 

31b:

Was first agreed, but then the "(Agreed)" was removed again by US 

 

Para 32 and 33: 

Agreed

 

34 (stocktaking):

South Africa wanted to change "a" to "one of the valuable tools" to
underline that the Stocktaking Report is not the only option.

UK found the last sentence too prescriptive and wanted to change it to "we
invite all countries to gather information at the national level". Canada
supported, but Senegal objected to the deletion of "mechanism" 

As only 12 minutes was left Karklins cut off the discussions and asked if
the delegations could adopt the paragraph as it stood. As they could not, it
will go to Tunis in brackets.

 

35:

Will go to Tunis in brackets

 

36: 

Cuba "We decide to make an overall review of the implementation of the WSIS
outcome by 2010."

Iran proposed the amendment of the word "annual".

Karklins replied to both that he would not accept such amendments in this
paragraph as the described report was purely procedural. The issues should
be addressed in the negotiations of

Agreed.

 

The afternoon session will start with 32-33, 37, deletion of 37b of
political chapeau and then continue with implementation and follow-up.
Karklins stated that if quick agreement was not reached on a paragraph this
afternoon, it would go to Tunis.

Jette Madsen
CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat

 



Date: Fri,  28 Oct 2005 


Find below the summary of this  afternoon's meeting  of the WSIS 
negotiation
group. It mainly focused on implementation and follow-up.


I will refer in the report below on the revised text of the operational
document (implementation and follow-up: WSIS-II/PC-3/DT-26
  (Rev. 1)) and 
to
the existing room documents, mostly available now on the ITU webite


After consulting delegations, Karklins decided that the negotiation 
group
would keep DT-9 open together with DT-26 and continue to import elements
from DT-9.

 

Paragraph 11 d (Russia lead discussion group) 96 Education for girls 
and
women, room doct. 11

Russia presented its consensus text with general reference to training 
and
education. 

UK proposes new language: 93promoting effective training and education,
particularly on ICT science and technology94. 

 

Brazil, supported by Canada, requested the element referring to decision
making should not be deleted from the later version, which was then 
rejected
by Russia.

 

Both proposals would be kept and brought for resumed PrepCom-3.

 

Paragraph 11 k (USA) 96 Libraries and free access

Proposed by the USA and amended by Australia, agreed as follows:

: 93supporting educational, scientific, and cultural institutions, 
including
libraries, archives and museums, in their role of developing, providing
equitable, open and affordable access to, and preserving diverse and 
varied
content, including in digital form, to support informal and formal
education, and in particular supporting libraries in their public 
service
role of providing free and equitable access to information and improving
research and innovation and to improve ICT literacy and community
connectivity particularly in underserved communities;94

Agreed

 

Paragraph 11 L 96 Quality education

Ecuador proposed to add 93dialect94 in addition to language, before
withdrawing its proposed amendment.

Agreed

 

Paragraph 11 L2 96 Quality of E-Content

93strengthening the creation of quality e-content, on national, 
regional and
international levels94

Israel would add 93e-content, taking into consideration the ethical
dimensions of information society, on national8594, but not accepted 
by the
UK.

Chairman suspended the discussion, will be discussed in Tunis.

 

Paragraph 1 n (Norway - Iran) 96 Independence and Plurality and media

Norway reported that concerned delegations did not have the time to 
discuss
this issue properly. Proposed the non-consensual wording: 94Consistent 
with
the rule of law, we commit the development of domestic legislation that
guarantees the independence and plurality of media8594.

 

Chairman re-conducted drafting groups of Norway and Iran.

 

Paragraph 11 o (Egypt) 96 ICT and environment

Russia: proposes to introduce 93the importance of the responsible use 
of8594.

Egypt: on the last new sentence of this paragraph on the specific needs 
of
developing countries.

Agreed

 

Paragraph 11 p (Iran and USA) 96 Co-regulation

This was almost agreed yesterday, except by Iran who withdrew its 
proposed
amendment today: we delete 93co-regulatory94 from DT-26.

Agreed

 

Paragraph 11 q (new proposal from Chile proposed yesterday) 96 creation 
of
research networks

Agreed

 

New paragraph 11 s (Argentina) - 

93by promoting the use of ICT to enhance flexible ways of working, 
including
teleworking, leading to greater productivity and job creation94.

Supported by GRULAC and G77. 

Egypt: proposes 93flexible methods of working94

Chair: at this stage it is take-it-or-leave-it. Agreed as it stands.

Agreed

 

Paragraph 12 96 Disaster reduction

Room Document 9 for new proposal on drafting group.

Pakistan: small amendment 93a) promoting technical cooperation and 
enhancing
the capacity94.

Agreed

 

Paragraph 13 (new proposed text by EU, Indian, USA and Iran) 96 Child
helpline

Russia stressed importance of national legislation and economic elements 
and
proposed that this should be on the basis of existing legislations and 
in
accordance with existing rules and procedures. UK highlighted that the
wording proposed by Russia did not convey the right message, so that
Karklins kept the original para. 13 of DT-26, with UE proposal as 
alternate
and would carry it to Tunis.

 

Paragraph 15 (informal consultation on this paragraph by Chairman) 96
unilateral measures

New text based on Karklins92 consultations did not get any consensus. 
The
Chairman suspended the discussion with the understanding that he would
continue to search for acceptable agreement.

 

Paragraph 17 (agreed ad referendum yesterday) 96 policy environment

No objection from Salvador, hence agreed

 

Paragraph 18 and 19 (Russia) 96 multi-stakeholder participation and
cooperation

Yesterday Russian proposed amendment to insert a reference to 93the 
leading
role of governments94 was rejected and there is no further agreement 
today,
unless Russian federation withdrew its amendment of yesterday. 

Russia leaves its proposed amendment in the text.

 

Paragraph 25 (proposal by Spain and consultation) 96 Information 
Society Day

Spain proposed to keep in bracket to the reference to the dates and 
leave
the rest of the paragraph as agreed. There is unanimity on the text but 
the
date must still be considered.

The text would be brought on this form to Tunis to make a deeper search 
on
the modalities and on who should do what.

 

Paragraphs 23 and so

Ambassador Karklins presented the informal answer he received from the 
UN in
New York: he was said the configuration of an interagency mechanism is a
prerogative of the system itself. A World Summit cannot tell CEB or SG 
to
create any body. The GA however can do that and can give general 
guidance,
such as set up in GA Resolution 57-270B, but cannot dictate elements. 
This
can only be decided by agreement among agencies, and only agencies can
decide which one should chair. The SG cannot decide to create or not a 
CEB
mechanism or not, but only propose, then it is up to agencies can agree 
or
not. Karklins stated he did not fully agree with this analysis, 
referring to
the WSIS Geneva Declaration 2003 which demanded the establishment of 2
working group, and the UN SG did it before the GA Resolution endorsing 
the
outcome of the Summit. In addition, Janis Karklins underlined the long
practice that UN Summit declaration are endorsed by the UNGA so that in 
his
view a World Summit can give guidance

 

On the UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development: In its
present composition, the UN CSTD cannot provide a framework for 
follow-up or
intergovernmental political review. CSTD was mentioned as reconstructed
commission, which requires ECOSOC decision, which is certainly doable.

 

This morning, I circulated copies of the UN Handbook (I will scan it and
mail it to the CS Plenary list fyi over the week end). 

 

Paragraph 23

Canada is comfortable with this approach.

Russia was comfortable with A723 in isolation, but reserved the right 
to come
back to 23 later for better inter-linkages with other paragraphs.

 

Paragraph 24

2 proposals:   Iran (supported by G77): creation of UN Group on the
Information Society within the UN CEB.

UK 

Egypt proposed to replace the 1st sentence of DT-26 existing para 24 by 
the
DT9 A720b which reads as follows: 93Each UN agency, within its mandate 
and
competencies, and based on decisions of their respective governing 
bodies,
and in line with UNGA Resolution 57/270 B, should facilitate activities
among different stakeholders, including civil society and the business
sector, to help national governments in their implementation efforts94

 

Chair reminded that the decision of governing bodies is already 
mentioned in
A723. 

Chile proposed to divide paragraph 24 in 3 parts: 1st sentence / CEB for
coordination modality / ECOSOC and its commission92s role (second part 
of the
UK proposal).

UK insisted to add 93including on participation of 
multi-stakeholder94.

 

Chile proposed to change the UK - EU text so that the UN SG would report 
in
June 2006 and not in July 2006 (before ECOSOC substantive session). In
addition, this should be two separate paragraphs (he will submit a 
possible
reformulation in writing, to be available on the ITU early next week). 

 

Finally States agreed that the Egyptian/G77 proposal, with adequate 
changes
to avoid repetition with other paragraphs, would replace the previous
Iranian proposal, as follows: 

Proposal from Egypt for Para 24 (last part) of DT/26 (Rev. 1)

93In this regard, bearing in mind UNGA Resolution 57/270 B entitled
"Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the 
outcomes
of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic and
social fields" and emphasizing the important responsibility of
intergovernmental bodies to further promote the implementation of the
outcomes of the major UN conferences and summits, we request the UN
Secretary-General to establish within the CEB a UN group on the 
Information
Society, chaired by the ITU, and consisting of the relevant UN organs 
and
organizations with the mandate to facilitate the implementation, 
evaluation
and the follow-up of WSIS and to report to the UNGA, on an annual basis 
[,
through the coordination segment of ECOSOC for further follow-up through 
the
functional UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development].94

 

Paragraph 26

Deleted because it was repeating elements of Egyptian and Iranian 
proposals.

 

Paragraph 27 and 29 (UK proposal to merge 27 and 29) 96 
multi-stakeholder
participation

Honduras and Ghana supported that the Annex to Paragraph 27 should be
retained and remained open to new elements. Ghana proposed that

Egypt proposed to delete the mention of a 93bottom-up94 approach. 
Karklins
demands Egypt not to insist on this proposal, but later on accepted to 
leave
it in square brackets. 

 

Canada concluded that we should keep a non prescriptive approach of this
annex.

 

Political Chapeau, paragraph 32

Chair proposes to replace new propose 32 and 33 by Salvador proposal for 
32.

UK refused and preferred to keep the former version.

Ambassador Karklins concluded that all what was still un-agreed at this
stage would be brought for further discussion in Tunis. 
 

The next governmental Bureau meeting on 1st November would decide on the
modalities for resumed PrepCom-3. Up-dated text under negotiation would 
be issues at the beginning of next week. 

Philippe Dam