By CIPP GENEVA, Switzerland,
Published onPage last updated on
The Commission for Science and Technology for Development is one of UN bodies that coordinate World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) follow-up. The tenth session of the Commission has held from 21-25 May 2007 in Geneva, Switzerland. It focused on “the follow-up to the outcome of WSIS at the regional and international level, to identify achievements, gaps and challenges, as well as future action needed to further implementation”. APC was there, and submitted concrete proposals to ensure meaningful inclusion of voices of the people most impacted by the digital divide.
Remarks from the Association for Progressive Communications addressing agenda items 2 and 3 of the CSTD
Presented by Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Executive Director
The task before the CSTD is complex, demanding, and very important. We want to encourage the CSTD to consider the following:
1. On the composition of CSTD member delegations and participation from non-governmental stakeholders:
- We support previous calls for participation non-governmental stakeholders (business and civil society)
- In addition we suggest that member states adopt the practice, common throughout the WSIS, for national delegations to include national business and civil society entities and experts from the academic and research community, to join their delegations and collaborate in pre-CSTD meeting preparation
- We support the creation of a multi-stakeholder advisory group to support the work of the CSTD
- We support the International Chamber of Commerce and CONGO’s proposals that speakers from civil society and business respond on every agenda item
- We encourage member states to keep in mind that the WSIS recognised that building a people centred information society involves more than science and technology, but also social, cultural, and economic development. It would strengthen their work if they kept this in mind constituting their delegations
2. On the timing of CSTD meetings:
- we propose that CSTD meetings limit, or prevent, overlap with Action Line coordination of IGF meetings
3. On providing background information and briefings to member states and meeting participants:
- we suggest that the CSTD builds on the existing website to turn it into a dynamic online repository of documents and resources related to WSIS follow up and also to CSTD meetings. Access to information is a precondition to participation
- if this website could include information about reporting structure and timelines, it would facilitate participation
- other means to facilitate remote participation
- as not all members of the CSTD participated actively in the WSIS we propose that the secretariat provides members with and easy to access and synthesised background resource on the WSIS process and outcomes. This would also be useful to convene, for optional attendance, short orientation sessions for participants from all stakeholder groups before meetings. The better informed participants, the more efficient meetings will be.
4. On the work programme of the CSTD:
We support the draft unedited concept note produced by the secretariat. In the light of the tight timeframe of the MDGs and of WSIS implementation it is important that the CSTD makes the best possible use of its time. We propose that:
- The role of the CSTD in WSIS follow up is overarching. We believe it can be most effective if it focuses on overarching obstacles and progress when presenting reports and recommendations to ECOSOC and other bodies, e.g. the GAID and action line coordinators.
- Only synthesised reports (e.g. using the themes proposed by the CSTD and or/action lines) and the recommendations they make should be presented and discussed at CSTD meetings
- It is not a space where individual institutions or countries are intended to showcase their achievements
- Reports from implementing entities, be they states, inter-governmental agencies; civil society business need not be presented IN sessions, but can be submitted beforehand and analysed and synthesised by the secretariat.
- Pre-meetings could be convened where countries and implementing agencies are able to present their achievements
5. On the formats of reporting from implementing entities to the CSTD:
- if all reports could consist of at least one part that follows a common format it would make it much easier for the CSTD to do the analysis and synthesis, for example, if reports can highlight achievements in policy making, in implementation, obstacles, priorities and recommendations. Some of the reports submitted to this Tenth Session of the CSTD consist primarily of lists of events. This is not terribly helpful to the work of the CSTD
- national entities should be encourages to submit reports that include the input of other stakeholders. The compilation of such national reports, could be come a useful device for encouraging collaboration between government, civil society and business at national level
6. On the matter of the CSTD’s mandate:
- In response to those members who pointed out that the mandate of the CSTD is broader than just the WSIS we support the input of Brazil who pointed out that ECOSOC in fact broadened the focus of the Commission. If this issue remains a concern, I propose that rather than try to fit WSIS follow up AND other issues into the same meeting, that at each session of the CSTD it works in two parallel streams: one on WSIS follow up and one that focuses on other issues.
7. On reporting to ECOSOC:
We urge the CSTD to create a timeframe and formats for compiling its reports and recommendations to ECOSOC that will allow accredited civil society and business to:
- provide input to these reports and recommendations
- provide comment on the reports and recommendations of the CSTD before these are finalised and submitted to ECOSOC
8. On prioritisation and measuring progress in priority areas:
The CSTD will be uniquely placed to have a big picture view of WSIS follow up and implementation and to identify cross-cutting priorities. We propose that in making recommendations for specific actions to ECOSOC they focus on one or two general priorities, rather than long lists. There are of course many issues that need attention, but these can be taken up by action line coordinators.
APC considers access to information and communications infrastructure (and the policy and regulation; capacity building and investment in infrastructure it requires), to be such a priority.
We suggest that for such priorities the CSTD convene small, multi-stakeholder working groups, that can identify a few basic indicators that can be used to measure progress. They can draw on the existing body of indicators and WSIS principles and goals. Alternatively they can request action line coordinators to undertake this task.
THANK YOU
