V2
ECOSOC General Debate and Informal Consultations
on the implementation of the World Summit on the Information
Compilation of Various informal Civil Society reports
Genava, July 2006
CONGO Introduction note 4 July.
CONGO is now back to post WSIS issues after some over-loaded working weeks in June in Geneva due to the 1st session of the newly established Human Rights Council (19-30 June) and the preparation of the CS Forum to the ECOSOC High Level Segment on Employment and Decent Work, organised by CONGO on 29-30 June (find attached for your information the outcome document with the recommendations of the Civil Society Forum, which are now circulated to the ECOSOC Member States).
As you may know, the ECOSOC substantive session will address during its July 2006 session the “review of the mandate, agenda and composition of the Commission of Science and Technology for Development (CSTD), including considering the strengthening of the Commission, taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach” (paragraph 105, Tunis Agenda).
As one of the outcome of the ECOSOC informal consultation process on the future role of the CSTD in the follow-up to WSIS (13 February and 16 May), it was agreed that a working group would be convened to explore various options on the CSTD review. We have been informed yesterday that this working group would be convened in Geneva, parallel to the Plenary meeting of the ECOSOC substantive session, from 11 July onwards (possibly until 13 July 2006), and that it will be open to all NGOs in ECOSOC consultative status, as well as to a certain number of other WSIS accredited NGOs (see below). This will take place just after the examination by ECOSOC of the SG report on “modalities of the inter-agency coordination of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes including recommendation on the follow-up process” and the report of the 9th CSTD session (May 2006). The ECOSOC decision regarding the CSTD review might be adopted at the very end of the ECOSOC session on the basis of the draft negotiated in the working group.
Calendar:
10 July: consideration by ECOSOC of the SG report on inter-agency coordination of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes including recommendation on the follow-up process and of the report of the 9th session of the CSTD.
11 July onwards (depending on the progress of the discussions, possibly until 13 July): meetings of the open ended working group on the review of the CSTD.
Action on all outstanding draft proposals (dates depending on the progresses of the discussions).
CONGO Monday 10 July
ECOSOC held today afternoon its general debate on the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, in particular as regards the review of the mandate, agenda and composition of the CSTD.
As you may know, ECOSOC will now hold some informal discussion in working groups with the view to finalise a resolution on the review of the CSTD. The first meeting of this working group will take place this afternoon at 3:00 at the UN. The ECOSOC Chair might present a non paper including some proposals for this resolution. NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status will be allowed to attend and participate, as well as WSIS accredited entities which have expressed the wish to participate. The private sector was invited to join the discussions.
Find enclosed and below a summary of this discussion :
ECOSOC General Debate on implementation of the World Summit on the Information
Society outcomes including recommendation on the follow-up process
Agenda items 6 and 13 (b), 10 July 2006
The general discussion was based on the UN SG Report entitled "Implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society" and the report of the UN CTSD on its 9th session (May 2006). ECOSOC Chair Ali El Achani clarified the scope of the meeting is to implement paragraph 105 of the Tunis Agenda which entitles ECOSOC to “oversee the system wide follow-up to the Geneva and Tunis outcomes of WSIS” and which ask it at its current session to “review the mandate, agenda and composition of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, including considering the strengthening of the Commission, taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach”.
Patrizio Civili, Assistant Secretary-General of the UN DESA, introduced the UN SG report, stressing the complex interrelated nature for multi-stakeholder implementation and follow-up processes. Both should be fully integrated and coordinated, in relation to the MDG agenda, involving all non governmental stakeholders and civil society. ECOSOC and the CSTD should be considered in this framework, as well as the General Assembly for its review of WSIS in 2015. He also referred to the recent establishment of UN GIS, within the CEB and of the inaugural meeting of Global Alliance for ICT and Development. He said the GAID would be a valuable source of input to ECOSOC on multi-stakeholder debate and contribute to the UN CSTD.
Dr. Jamaludin Jarjis, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation of Malaysia, reported on the outcomes and the discussion held during the first inaugural meeting of the UN GAID, held on 19-20 June in Kuala-Lumpur. Dirk J. Bruinsma, Deputy SG of UNCTAD, reported on Action Line Facilitation meetings in which UNCTAD has been involved so far, as well as in the role of UNCTAD serving as Secretariat for the UN CSTD. He lastly stressed the impact of science and technology, not only limited to ICT, on economic and social development.
Strengthening of the UN CSTD
The G77 (South Africa) supported the strengthening of the CSTD membership, mandate and working methods to take up the WSIS follow-up in addition to its existing mandate. The EU (Finland) stressed the distinction between follow-up within ECOSOC and interagency coordination within the UNGIS. Membership should better reflect its new tasks and its secretariat should be reinforced by benefiting from help from other agencies. Chile and Egypt called for an extension of membership and a strengthening of the CSTD secretariat. The EU and Switzerland supported the strengthening of the linkages between implementation of WSIS and of other UN Conferences and Summits. Russia underlined the new CSTD mandate should not be at the expense of the existing mandate. El Salvador reminded the strengthening of the CSTD should be based both on WSIS and on the outcomes of the UN World Summit.
G77 supported an extension of the annual session to ten working days, including 4 days for WSIS follow-up and 2 days for multi-stakeholder inputs.
The USA highlighted that the mandate of the CSTD has not been decided yet, and that the CSTD should have a limited role in the WSIS follow-up with the view to facilitate reporting on WSIS implementation to ECOSOC and the GA, while keeping the operational role and policy dialogue outside of its competence. The CSTD mandate should keep its technical nature, made up of scientific experts representing States. WSIS follow-up activities could be dealt with in one day. Database and information should not lead to duplication of activities. Existing resources and similar membership should be preserved.
UNESCO said it was vital for the new CSTD mandate to take into account UNESCO’s particular mandate in science, in order to avoid any overlap.
Articulation between implementation and the system wide follow-up by ECOSOC and CSTD
G77 suggested the CSTD should review progresses on implementation of action lines at the international, regional and national level; make policy guidance recommendations to ECOSOC; promote dialogue and build partnerships; operationalize paragraph 60 of the UN World Summit (September 2005). The CSTD should adopt a two year follow-up cycle including a review session (drawing on the ALF and UNGIS outcomes among others) and a policy session (discuss obstacles and solutions, based on the results of the review session). Egypt also supported the organisation work based on a review session and a policy session in development orientation. Chile added that the biannual PoA should follow WSIS action lines. Switzerland and Chile supported that the CSTD mandate should be extended to include review of implementation, policy recommendation to ECOSOC and promotion of dialogue and partnership. Switzerland stressed the working methods should follow the recommendations of GA Resolution 57/270B, and be articulated around a two year work programme.
Participation of civil society and the private sector
G77 underlined the intergovernmental nature of the CSTD; ECOSOC modalities for civil society involvement should therefore be observed in the multi-stakeholder participation in the CSTD. The participation should be open to NGOs and to the private sector. Argentina stressed the importance of having multi-stakeholder components in the CSTD. The EU supported the engagement of non state actors should be further developed within the CSTD with the view to recognise the unique multi-stakeholder character of WSIS. Russia noted that participation of NGOs and the private sector should be determined in accordance with the rules of procedure of the Council. Switzerland stressed that the participation of civil society and the private sector should also be ensured in the intersessional panels and in electronic spaces for dialogue. Two working days should be devoted to multi-stakeholder dialogue. The US vision of the multi-stakeholder approach is base don increased number of parallel events and participation sponsorship. The role of all stakeholders should be clearly defined and the private sector should be incorporated into the CSTD.
The EU said the GAID could not be the substitute for effective multi-stakeholder participation for implementation and follow-up. Lastly, Switzerland added the GAID should concentrate itself in the integration of ICT in the UN development agenda without participating in operational activities.
The Conference of NGOs stressed that, with the view to continue the involvement of all actors in the work of the Commission at the same level of mobilization and contribution as during WSIS, we consider as necessary that future practices of the CSTD should draw upon the multi-stakeholder interactions and contributions as experienced during the WSIS process. A formal arrangement should be established so that CS entities accredited to WSIS and willing to contribute to the WSIS follow-up benefit from a fast-track inclusion in the work of the CSTD. Lastly, while being a significant actor feeding into the CTSD, the Global Alliance should not be considered as the only multi-stakeholder process of the CSTD, but only as one of them :
------------------------------
CONGO Tuesday 11 July
This draft resolution was compiled by the Chair of ECOSOC at this afternoon’s informal working group meeting. The working group might be functioning until it finalizes a text each afternoon from 3 to 6 (but not on this upcoming Friday).
Ambassador Janis Karklins accepted this afternoon to facilitate the discussion on this text.
It is clear that the most contentious part of this text will be paragraph 9 on multi-stakeholder participation… There is quite a broad support for a fast track accreditation process for WSIS accredited CS entities, even though some States still have some reservations or questions.
I draw your attention to paragraph 7 and 8 regarding modalities for interaction and the use of electronic devices.
----------------------------
CONGO Wednesday 12 July
We are currently going during the WG meeting through a first reading of this text, starting by operational paragraph 1. Other WG meetings will take place tomorrow Thursday, and then will continue on next Monday and Tuesday. Ambassador Karklins would like to see the discussions finished on Tuesday.
NGOs are allowed to be in the Room and to take the floor. Ambassador Karklins made it clear at the beginning of the meeting that his intention is to keep the meeting open ended and no delegation opposed.
Contributions can be made on the basis of this attached text.
-------------
CONGO Thursday 13 July
Note that alternate paragraph 9 was proposed yesterday by Charles Geiger, to better accommodate the participation of private sector entities in the CSTD. PS cannot be included in ECOSOC modalities for consultative relationship with NGOs based on 1996/31, so that the previous wording was legally not satisfactory.
To keep you up dated, we have been informed at the end of today’s informal consultation that South Africa on behalf of G77had asked Karklins that NGO observers would not participate in the next meetings, scheduled on next Monday and Tuesday. We understood however that this question had actually not yet been discussed within G77, but that it might be addressed tomorrow morning. We will keep you posted tomorrow…
-------------------------
FM: Thursday 13 July
Current
negotiations in Geneva are quite crucial for Implementation and
Follow-Up ( except Internet Governance ).
All
Observers, including Ecosoc accredited ones, may be expelled
from the room if the South African representative
persists. The story unfold as follows, as we are facing
two serious procedural problems. The first problem concerns the
current procedure of the "informal consultation", that were
first started by the Chair of ECOSOC himself, Ali Achani for a short
session on Monday, he announced there will be a non-paper as a basis
for future "informal consultations", and then Achani
decided that the following 'informal consultations" will be
chaired by Karklins.
During the informal sessions on Monday,
and mostly on Tuesday ,Wednesday, and Thursday, Civil Society was
allowed to speak and to propose language. At that time, the Civil
Society that took the floor was DAPSI, the African Diaspora, with
Pape Diouf, CONGO with Philippe, and me. On Tuesday, when Karklins
took the chair, he asked all governments if none objected to his
proposal that the discussions be open-ended, meaning also open to
Civil Society observers. No Government, including China, objected.
Business is not present, which alarmed very much the United
States delegation, but the CCBI turned now into the BASIS
(Business Action to Support the Information Society ) ( nice acronym;
) sent judiciously a written contribution,
reassuring the US delegation which might have otherwise opposed Civil
Society presence.
The "informal discussions"
proceeded with exactly the same open procedure as during the
Friends of the Chair sessions during WSIS. They are just informal
negotiations. Then at the end of the session on Thursday, we
were stunned to learn that South Africa ( who happens to represent
the G77, so there is some confusion as to whether South Africa was
speaking for itself or for G77 ) has requested Civil Society to be
expelled from the next informal sessions
on Monday and Tuesday on
the ground that, according to ECOSOC rules of procedures,
observers
cannot be present during negotiations. The delegate from South
Africa:
Henri
Raubenheimer G77/ZA representative
http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2003/issue1/0103p23.html
http://www.iisd.ca/ffd/pc3/wed1710.html
just
stepping fresh into the discussions at this stage, is based in New
York.
Since it is an informal meeting, ECOSOC rules of
procedures does not apply.
However, according to rules outlined
by the chair, if a government objects to the presence of Civil
Society, then Civil Society must leave the room. However, it is clear
that the government that is requesting the Civil Society to leave
cannot take cover of asking for the application of ECOSOC rules, this
government must endorse its full political responsibility of its
willful intent to expel Civil Society. As it is clear that there
absolutely no consensus in the G77 on this matter, that has not been
discussed yet within the G77, South Africa would have to endorse
alone its decision.
At the end of
session on Thursday, with the friendly advice of the representative
of an East African state, after getting lost, I finally reached the
G77 office. and I met the South African representative
and was able to explain to him the situation. The discussion
was calm but tense. He said to me that the G77 will
discuss this question on Friday.
----------------------------------------------
Friday 14 July.
No informal
consultations meeting today, however I met again the G77/ZA delegate,
this time with Philippe, on Friday morning, in the G77 offices, but
no further progress was made.
On Friday night, long past 6 PM,
after the end of the closed G77 meeting , few friendly delegates told
Ana Laurinda and me that this question was not discussed during this
G77 meeting, that they were late, and did not finish their agenda.
We are therefore still in the fog. Most G77 delegates from Latin
America strongly supports Civil Society presence so if South Africa
want to pursue its stance, I guess it would have to do it alone.
The
content of the current discussions on the non-paper concerns the
procedures to be followed by the reformed CSTD for WSIS. One crucial
question is whether the reformed
CSTD will follow procedures
followed at WSIS, or those of ECOSOC, where precisely Civil Society
cannot attend negotiations ( what we have been doing during
WSIS ! ).
So if we are expelled from current discussions, it is a
very bad omen for the content of the non-paper and future CS
involvement at the CSTD concerning WSIS follow-up.ITU, UNESCO and
other internal agencies representatives being
there are going to
take note....
All these very difficult negotiations
underlines the need of the continuuing role of the CSB, otherwise
Civil Society stands to loose, during the follow-up phase; all the
gains being made on procedural issues during the first two phases of
WSIS.
Renate should be there on Monday to reinforce the CS in
current negotiations, and to discuss what could be done at the CSB
level.
In this context, I contacted Adama Samassékou,
here is the text ( translated from French )
-----------------------------------
Following various
conversations, H.E Adama Samassékou, President of the WSIS
PrepCom of the Geneva phase authorizes to communicate that, on one
side, in his vision, when it was created, the Civil Society Bureau
had been formed for the overall WSIS process which naturally include
implementation and follow-up, and on the other side, this global
vision also comprised the formation of national or regional Civil
Society Bureaus, antennas of the Geneva Bureau, to deal with
procedural issues for implementation at national and regional levels.
In General all Civil Society efforts aiming at fully assuming
its role within implementation and follow-up, are receiving all but
his encouragements.
_______________________________________
FM: Monday 17 July
The session started with full
suspense. Karklins told us that South Africa/G77 was still
maintaining its position. Karklins started the meeting with a very
vague sentence alluding that those who are attending "are
allowed to stay there according to rules of procedures".
Then
some states asked for clarification, and Karklins asked a secretary
of ECOSOC to explain the rules of procedure. She came five minutes
later. She said that observers could be allowed to stay in ECOSOC
sessions if attending governments allow it. The situation is quite
diverse and she quoted examples of CS participation.
Then
Australia took the floor supporting the presence of CS, but at least
being silent observers. EU supported Australia, US supported
Australia.
Then Chile intervened calling for a more active
participation of Civil Society, suggesting a preliminary statement.
Mexico supported.
Then the South African/G77 delegate intervened
, he thanked the chair for the clarification, and rather
surprisingly, he said he always supported Civil Society presence.
Morocco asked what was the exact status of the talks. Karklins
answered they were informal consultation towards negotiations. Then
South African/G77 intervened again asking what was then the meaning
of a "closed" meeting on the schedules ? ( the argument he
told us repeatedly during our conversations is that the meeting was
"closed" ). The ECOSOC secretary answered is was simply an
indication to the press, :-) ! meaning that the Press was not allowed
in closed meetings. No more objection from South Africa !
This
ended the procedural controversy to the advantage of CS, but we lost
the right to make short suggestions during the discussion, which is
still a big loss.
Renate made a general statement (and she left
some time after as she had to chair other conferences, while
Alejandra staid. Being not able to make any short suggestion is very
frustrating. I went to a library upstair to make printouts of
language propositions that I distributed to delegates. It is
disappointing to say that unless you explain orally each strong
points to each person, there is little impact.
Tomorrow,
since the paragraph being studied is the paragraph on
Multi-Stakeholders I will ask in my preliminary statement that CS be
allowed to make short interventions ( less than 3 minutes )
whenever appropriate during the discussion. I told the South African
delegate about this idea, and this time, he said nothing, which would
also help regain what we have lost
in terms of informal
procedural practices.
An unexpected gain is that US proposed
a new formulation of paragraph 4 c that quoted "established
rules of ECOSOC and WSIS" ( I had lobbied very hard the previous
to get WSIS added to ECOSOC, EU and Switzerland supported it) This
paragraph is almost agreed.
The big point that has NOT been
addressed in my language suggestions so far is how the
multi-stakeholder approach could be reflected in the reformed CSTD
commission. A multi-stakeholder advisory group like for the IGF ?
Unless
some one has a better idea, ( PLEASE DO PROPOSE SOMETHING ASAP ) this
what I am going to propose tomorrow. However with the high proportion
of diplomats here who never attended the WSIS, the prospects
are dim for a MAG.
At the pace the negotiations are going, I
don't see how the negotiations could end up tomorrow on
Tuesday. I must leave tomorrow night Geneva.
---------------------------------------------------------
FM
: Tuesday 18 July
Hello
This Tuesday session was most
disappointing. Its began with the surprising appearance of Achani who
came to communicate the delegates its "worry" of seeing so
many paragraphs still in brackets, and the slow progress of
negotiations. We were then expecting Karklins to give CS the floor,
as its happened yesterday and as promised ( unless the promise was
made only for one day ... ;-( ! ), but there was no such
sign from the chair, and so the "intergovernemental"
negotiation began.
Karklins went directly to the paragraphs
on reporting OP11bis, OP12 hoping to get an quick agreeement on those
seemingly easy ones. Unfortunately it was not case, as the G77/South
African delegate begun to ask questions to which Renate knew all the
answers ! This person did not seem to be well informed as a career
diplomat should be ( all the more he reminded Karklins later, that he
chaired an ECOSOC session once... ) Khan ( Global Alliance ) who
happened to be on table row with Karklins was even asked to provide
explanations. This bogged down the debate, while the two proposals
that I was making concerning a direct report for the sake of
collecting information ( not for as sign of being under the control
of ) from specialized agencies, and direct report contributions to
CSTD by other stakeholders were left aside.
Since
CS was kept silent, despite some calm and dignified handling with the
"Société Civile" official plastic signs,
there was no way to underline those two issues.
( This report
is from the top of my head, as I am just arriving in Paris, from
Geneva, so the chronology might not be 100% accurate, my
remembrance is good only to some aspects,
while the rest got
fuzzy )
Then we went to OP3 again word smithing (
responsibility, mechanisms ) and to OP4. The G77/ZA delegate went to
discuss about his proposition of having the word "monitor".
Canada, staunchly opposed. G77/ZA stood firm in a deadlock. The EU
proposed "examine" Then G77/ZA proposed "oversee"
but It was claimed that "oversee" was the task of ECOSOC,
not of one its functional commission operating at "a lower
level'. There was a deadlock, and then the apex of the
grotesque was slowly reached.
The discussion degenerated. At
loss, trying to help ( and possibly to show the vanity of this
semantic discussion ) some delegates from South American countries
began to raise the question of how the verb "monitor" could
be translated in Spanish, and could only be be translated as
"control", and quoting the Royal dictionary, claim the verb
did not exist, but only the name. The delegate from Spain ( who never
spoke ever since and probably never will speak ever again, since in
the EU ) said the Spanish language could vary from country to
country and the verb could exist...
The South American delegates
did request the translators to intervene in the discussion, but they
were not allowed by the chair to give their opinions...
At that
moment, Karklins, for once loosing his reserve, made an informal
statement saying
that no matter what the exact terms be chosen,
it would not change anything in the way the bureaucracy would handle
things.
Meanwhile I handled a note to one of the secretary
to be passed to the chair asking when the CS statement was
scheduled. No answer. Then we went mostly to OP4 c) and the
hell was raised again about the question if the list of stakeholders
would appear there or elsewhere, and what should the list
should comprise. In my written language proposal, I suggested that
the digital solidarity fund should be at least
mentioned. ( nothing concerning financial resources to bridge the
digital divide is ever mentioned in this text so far... ) .
Then
G77/ZA asked what was the meaning of "multistakeholders groups
and platforms". At that point,Karklins decided to ask CS
(Renate ) if no state objected ( none did ).
Renate was then
allowed to provide some explanations that satisfied seemingly G77/ZA.
Then at about 17H30, we went into OP10.
This time Karklins
did again give CS the right to make some observations. I was able to
speak, quoting briefly, my written proposal that CS should be given
the same flexibility as the Private sector, in order to allow CS
entity, new to the WSIS, but not eligible to the ECOSOC status, to
have the possibility of being invited, then I proposed very briefly
three additional paragraphs one about Think Tanks and another one
about a much needed fund to help
CS people ( in particular from
developing countries ) to participate to ECOSOC sessions, and the
last one on the need of a multi-stakeholder advisory group to embody
the mutli-stakeholder approach. In fact, I had ready a written
proposal, a "CS non paper" that describes the function of a
Sub-Commission for multi-stakeholder approach
This CS non
paper was drafted by a helping hand in the staff of an international
organization that wish to remain anonymous. Although I had barely the
time to read it, and just very slightly
modified, I found the
content as an excellent rationale for a language proposal that
I elaborated by using almost the same language as for the
WGIG creation. ( see attached rtf and openoffice format ).
CONGO (Philippe, Renate) read it also quickly, as well as a DAPSI
representative (can't remember his name, he is a friend of Pape Diouf
).
--> Side remarks : Comments and improvements would be
most helpful. The content could be used also a stand alone CS non
paper that could be written by the CSB. It is clear the CONGO must
not present itself only with its mandate with ECOSOC, but as the
liaison officer of the CSB, because otherwise we are stuck to ECOSOC
rules, while we want to get out of them. If the situation does not
improve tomorrow, the CSB shoud write a strong statement to Achani,
( and/or possibly to G77 )
Renate intervened
again latter on, convincingly on the necessity to have all CS
included.
EU intervened to include mention of WSIS rules which is
a major advance. I am no longer sure but it seems to me that
Australia and US also supported. Anyway the US mentioned that the
states were not bound, for the reformed CSTD, to ECOSOC rules and
were "sovereign" (exact words ) to adopt whatever
rules they saw fit, like WSIS rules. Then the session ended.
Karklins announced the schedules of morning meetings of regional
groups to prepare the next session on Wednesday afternoon ( it seems
now that negotiation is going last, at least, until Friday ) and
somehow he mentioned observers, and this was an occasion for the
ZA/G77 delegate to launch a pique, with his strong voice "G77
meetings have very strict rules on observers" ( meaning
there are none... :-( ! ).
Since I had to catch a train to go
back to Paris, I had little time for late afternoon lobbying, except
I came to see the US delegate, somewhat surprised by their positive
attitude today. Concerning the _Sub-Commission for multi-stakeholder
approach, he said that the US would not oppose it ( the argument of
partially mirroring the MAG in the IGF process seems to get traction
). I could not stay any longer in Geneva, I planned to stay
until last Friday and I extended until Tuesday night, I some other
urgent matters to deal with in Paris, including a contribution
to the recourse before the constitutional council against the bad and
ugly Copyright law in France was very narrowly adopted by the French
parliament, but this is yet another story that is going to be
reported soon.
I hope more CS people could come, at least
those in Geneva that are accredited to ECOSOC. I hope Jean-Louis in
Strasbourg ( 4 hours ride ) from Geneva could come as he said on his
post to the plenary, and could come under the banner of whatever CS
entity in ECOSOC consultative status that could be kind enough to
adopt his NGO on a provisional basis as an umbrella
organization, to allow him to speak.
May be, we should seriously,
investigate the possibility of an umbrella organization with ECOSOC
status.?
Let us keep hope... but we need more actions
than prayers, although we may need both...
------------------------------
CONGO : Wednesday 19 July 2006
Please find attached tonight’s draft resolution based on today’s difficult discussions.
ECOSOC Chair Achani actually had a meeting this morning with coordinators of regional groups on the steps forward. He proposed on this occasion a compromise package regarding the number of members (43 members) and the length of the annual session (5 days, with a review of this practice within 2 years).
The EU proposed the multi-stakeholder approach should be added into this package.
It should also be noted that the EU proposed a new wording for multi-stakeholder approach (paragraph 10 b and c) which reflects some of our concerns regarding the fast track participation procedure for WSIS accredited CS entities. See attached too.
Very few progresses compared with yesterday’s draft. , speaking on behalf of G77, is demonstrating a very rigid approach, to which also answer the western countries, and many discussions highlight the difficult nature of these discussions. The question of Mandate was discussed a lot, but we had no time to address the multi-stakeholder approach.
--------------------------------------------------------
CONGO Friday 21 July
Dear all, there was not much progress in yesterday’s afternoon session ( Thursday 20 July ). We did not even come to discuss any further the CS participation and MS issues. Rolling resolution attached.
Karklins finally proposed a break until Tuesday to give delegates a chance to get informally together to find accepted language for consensus, particularly on mandate of the CSTD and on monitoring, review and assess progress
FM note :
Babelfish translations.
to oversee, to monitor, to control, to review, to assess; to examine, to supervise
french
surveiller, pour surveiller, pour commander, pour passer en revue, pour évaluer, pour examiner, pour diriger
spanish :
supervisar, supervisar, controlar, repasar, determinar, examinar, supervisar
Note : monitorar exists in Spanish !:
http://www.logosconjugator.org/
Russian
надзирать, контролировать, контролировать, рассмотреть, определить, рассмотреть, наблюдать
german
beaufsichtigen, überwachen, steuern, wiederholen, festsetzen, überprüfen, überwachen