When the dust settles on WSSD, the attention of the global community is likely to turn to the World Summit on the Information Society, or WSIS. The outcome of WSIS is intended to lead to a Declaration of Principles by world leaders on the Information Society and a Plan of Action for bridging the global digital divide.

Preparatory Committee 1 for WSIS, was held in Geneva, July 1-5 2002. Beginning promisingly enough, the meeting ended in disarray. As the first ever WSIS expectations were high. The two legs of the Summit – in themselves unusual and intensive – will be staged in Geneva (December 2003) and Tunis (2005) under the patronage of Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the leadership of the International Telecommunication Union, or ITU. Along with ITU Secretary General Yoshio Utsumi, the SG has designated the Administrator and Nitin Dessai to a three-member steering committee reporting directly to him on the progress of WSIS preparations.

The main problems both of the WSIS in general and of PrepCom process in particular centre on:

• The intergovernmental nature of the Summit, laid out in the General Assembly resolution, and the risk of exclusion of civil society and the private sector.
• The role of the ITU and the risk of exclusion of the broader UN family.
• The skewed emphasis in issues and themes on telecommunications regulation and infrastructure at the expense of a poverty and development focus as related to Information and Communication Technology, or ICT
• The unprecedented and uneasy mix of ICT, diplomatic, and development experts in the context of a world summit.
• The functioning of the WSIS Executive Secretariat and Bureau.

The PreCom was attended by 950 delegates from 141 nations, 29 UN organizations, and 144 non-governmental organizations and 28 private sector companies. Because the accreditation procedures were still under discussion civil society decamped to a venue across the street for most of the PrepCom. Their confusion at the intergovernmental nature of WSIS and the potential for their exclusion at the Summit proper, even though they had been admitted as observers to PrepCom 1, led to general frustration.

The general statements of the member states lasted for nearly two days. These were very encouraging mainly because the traditional ITU constituency of Ministers of Communications were supplemented on the delegations by officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs. Thus, repeated emphasis was made on the need for a poverty and development focus and thence the essential linkage with the Millennium Development Goal. It seems clear that UNDP’s principal role moving forward will be to more fully articulate and reinforce this vision through advocacy and advice to WSIS.

Stress was also laid on the need for regional input and support given to the series of regional PrepComs (Bamako, June 2002; Bucharest, November 2002; Tokyo, January 2003; Santo Domingo, March 2003; Beirut, tbd). Widespread support was also given for the full participation of civil society and the privated sector, and specifically making use of the work of the DOT Force and UN ICT Task Force, both in terms of their multi-stakeholder make up and their respective Plans of Action.

After the general statements by the member states, the international organizations were invited to intervene. UNDP led (see Attachment 1) and noted as chair of the UNDG, and in consultation with other members, a joint statement would be made by the UNDG Executive Committee later at the PrepCom. UNDP was also asked to speak at the plenary session of "Activities Related to WSIS", along with WBG, ITU, UNESCO, WEF, G-8 Presidency, UN ICT TF, and UN ECA, where we emphasized UNDP's existing ICT activities at the national, regional and global level, as well as our future role in the definition of the ICT MDGs.

In the opening plenary on "Common Issues and Themes", UNDP followed member states comments in delivering the joint UNDG statement (see Attachment 2). Apart from reinforcing calls for a poverty and development focus in the common issues and themes, the joint position emphasizes the need to take the work of previous and future UN conferences into account, to ensure full participation of civil society and the private sector, to arrive at a common understanding of the nature of the information society and digital divide, as well as to avoid the trap of allowing ICT to divert aid from existing priorities, but rather invest in ICT as a cross-cutting tool for development. The statement was supported by a number of member states including UK, Denmark and Italy. The chair, Adam Samassekou, President of the Mali Academie Africaine des Langues, instructed the executive secretariat to revise its tabled document on common issues and themes in light of these and other comments.

The chair then established a second, closed sub-committees on common issues and themes, in addition to the sub-committee on rules and procedures established on the first day, that should report back to plenary. In both sub-committees progress of the PrepCom broke down. Essentially, the sub-committee participants comprised the member state representatives on the WSIS Bureau - 15 countries with 3 from each UN region and Switzerland and Tunisia as ex officio - and members of the WSIS Executive Secretariat. This turned out to be a highly flawed approach - the Bureau members are mostly the Permanent Mission Representatives in Geneva, low on development and ICT sector knowledge and high on rules of procedures, the Executive Secretariat members mostly ITU staff.

This was compounded by filibustering by the Pakistan and Brazilian delegations in both sub-committee that paralyzed PrepCom discussions for two days. Purporting to represent the full views of the G77, Pakistan in particular adopted pedantic and abstruse positions on almost every point. For example, the rules and procedures of the opening ceremony were still being debated in sub-committee four hours after the ceremony had ended. Opposition was particularly stiff on the participation of civil society and the private sector and on common themes and issues. Even the presence of UN observers in the subcommittees was contested.

Ultimately, agreement was reached on the rules and procedures for the PrepComs, with observer status for civil society and the private sector, but not for the Summit. No agreement was reached on common issues and themes, which were put out for informal consultations in Geneva before the next PrepCom. This may make the innovative proposal by the European Union to break free from the organizational structure of past UN summits to organize a core political summit surrounded by a "networked series of events", involving all stakeholders and with focussed themes, difficult to achieve. The dates proposed by the ITU for the next PrepCom were thrown out as they fell in the middle of the Geneva human rights meeting next March. In informal discussions with the WSIS Executive Secretary after the PrepCom, he expressed the belief that this PrepCom had achieved a 75 percent success rate. The general view of participants was that 25 percent would be generous and that the WSIS is destined for failure without concerted action.

As mentioned above, unless concerted action is taken, the pattern of previous UN summits - highly ritualistic, rigid in procedure, short on follow-up and enforcement, and, in the end, usually become best remembered for the cities in which they occurred - is likely to be repeated. In the case of WSIS, this anachronism will not only be ironic but embarrassing in the face of the exponential rate of technology advance, and the evolution of the networked economy and society.

All of this notwithstanding, the difficult and protracted WSIS process will go forward. Further, this process will present the opportunity for national political leaders to register their views as to how best, most effectively, and speedily the evolution of a worldwide Information Society can be spurred. Likewise, it will provide an advocacy outlet for international organizations, NGOs and business leaders that build, run, and fund ICT infrastructure and content projects in the cause of social and economic development.

Given UNDP’s role on the SG’s steering committee, the concern already expressed privately by the SG to Yoshio Utsumi on the progress of the Summit, the reluctance of the ITU to open up the process, and the dysfunctional nature of the Bureau and the Executive Secretariat, the following are recommend:

1. Develop a strategy to raise the visibility and involvement of the UN family at WSIS, given the failure of the High Level Summit Organizing Committee, or HLSOC, of UN agencies to do so. More specifically, it is essential to ensure the strategic interests of UNDG are not undermined. UNDG executive committee members worked together in Geneva and can have an impact moving forward. The Administrator should prepare a note for the next CEB with a proposal to set up a UNDG Working Group to prepare for the two legs of WSIS and build the essential bridge between the technical and development, and technical and programmatic arms of the UN. Agencies can nominate representatives and agree on leadership of the WG, as well as make suggestions relevant. The ITU should be asked to join the WG as an ad hoc member given its leadership role in WSIS. The starting point for the WG will be a briefing to UNDG on PrepCom 1 and the establishment of future milestones. Different leadership roles may be appropriate for the WG members depending on themes to be covered. The above approach will allow UNDG executives to take a consolidated position to the HLSOC.
2. UNDP, DESA and ITU principals should designate representatives to meet informally and report back regularly to the SG’s steering committee on Summit progress and preparations.
3. Greater emphasis should be given to the regional PrepComs with concomitant support from UNDP and UNDG. UNDP was already participated fully at the first regional PrepCom in Bamako, June 2002. RBEC has devised an intensive work programme for Bucharest, November 2003 (see Annex 1 below). BDP has been asked by Government of Japan for support from the TTF for Tokyo, January 2003, and an e-Strategies side event will be organized by UNDP. Both Santo Domingo and Beirut are currently tentative for March and April 2003.

• Digital Opportunity Initiative report - advocacy and comprehensive & inclusive framework for harnessing digital opportunities in a sustainable way. This also forms the corporate UNDP framework in ICT for Development.

• Role in UN MDG Task Force on Technology Convergence and HDR 2003 - linking ICT to achievement of MDGs and focus on meeting target 18
• Proposed Regional HDR for the CIS addressing in part the readiness of the region’s sub-regions and individual countries for the advent of the information society and its diverse consequences, and addressing the MDG focus. Ideally, this report is expected to be launched before or during the WSIS in December 2003.
• (This could also be undertaken in the other regions)

Active participation and role in regional Preparatory Conferences

- Bamako May 2002 and forthcoming Bucharest November 2002

In the case of Africa, thirteen pre-conference workshops and other activities took place as part of Bamako 2002. UNDP jointly organized a few of these pre-conference workshops with UNECA including that on ICT policies and strategies in Africa. In addition, UNDP contributed on many levels to the conference: the local CO provided financial assistance to UNITAR and a Swiss-based NGO to deploy a programme that aims at capacity building among Africans for an efficient participation in the WSIS process; it also ensured participation of 14 Malians from the 7 regions. SURF Dakar contributed with 2 policy advisors who presented papers dealing with e-strategies in Africa, the adoption of the open source and the ICT and gender issues on the continent.

In the case of Eastern Europe/CIS UNDP, in collaboration with GIPI, will be leading this process. An agreement has been reached with the Regional Union of Communications (which is wider than CIS as it also includes also Turkey and Estonia) to cooperate in light of Bucharest and Geneva. A first practical step is a CIS Expert Groups meeting being organized in Kyrgyzstan during the first week of September to discuss how to work and what to do in terms of a common regional agenda. A second event will be a meeting in Moscow in October so as to finalize the joint position and vision and share it with the countries’ political leaders, just before the Bucharest meeting in November. Also planned is a CIS-wide Information Society Summit in 2003, BEFORE the World Summit. The CIS Executive Council (which can take this decision) has been approached on this.

More specifically, the regional conferences are expected to undertake the following main tasks:

• Conduct a regional assessment of the relevant challenges, opportunities and constraints, taking into account a) the specific constraints faced by the region and b) constraints resulting from global developments in the information society.
• Develop a vision for an information-based society in the region and a strategy to achieve that vision.
• Establish a platform for dialogue and contributions that includes all major stakeholders.
• Share experiences and provide an opportunity to forge a better understanding of the concerns of the countries in the region, to prepare their positions and to identify themes for the Summit.
• Identify existing initiatives and networks in the regions and assess examples of best practices.

• Support to national multi-stakeholder forums and consultation processes (in all the regions, through the global programme in Vietnam, Mozambique, Bolivia) relating to the adoption of development focused e-strategies in coordination (where feasible with the mainstreaming of ICT into poverty reduction strategies and PRSPs - proposed for Vietnam, Mozambique)
• Support for development focused comprehensive e-strategies in all the regions. These efforts can draw on the momentum created around WSIS and provide a mechanism for follow-up at the national level.

_____