our reference
WSIS Executive Secretariat
C/- International Telecommunication Union
wsis-info@itu.int
Dear Sir
Australia welcomes the consultation by the ITU, UNESCO and UNDP on the
implementation at the international level of action lines resulting from the World
Summit on the Information Society (WSIS).
Please find attached some preliminary Australian Government views on this issue for
consideration at the consultation meeting on 24 February 2006 and more generally.
Attachment 1 sets out a number of points that should be considered in establishing the
WSIS implementation process at the international level.
Attachment 2 is our preliminary response to your stakeholder questionnaire.
Australia emphasises the need for any international implementation arrangements to:
• stay focussed on the contribution ICTs can make to achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals;
• be open to multiple stakeholders on a self-selecting basis;
• give due regard and encouragement to action at the national and regional levels;
• be the minimum necessary, lightweight, efficient and effective; and
• provide scope and opportunity for bottom-up autonomy, initiative and innovation.
In the event you need to follow-up on our contribution, our contact officer is Dr Sabina
Fernando, Assistant Manager, Internet Governance and WSIS (ph: +61 2 6271 1097;
email: ig&wsis@dcita.gov.au).
Yours sincerely
[Signed]
Colin Oliver
A/g General Manager
International Branch
24 February 2006
GPO Box 2154 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia telephone 02 6271 1000 facsimile 02 6271 1901
email dcita.mail@dcita.gov.au website http://www.dcita.gov.au
-2-
ATTACHMENT 1
WSIS IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL -
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
Australia considers the following points need to be considered carefully in establishing
the WSIS implementation process at the international level.
1. Development orientation and MDGs must be kept in sight
In all WSIS implementation activities, care must be taken not to lose sight of the
fundamental development orientation of the WSIS action lines and the intention that they
help harness ICTs to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
2. Geneva and Tunis action lines should be integrated
In considering WSIS implementation, it is important to remember that there are action
items in both the Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda which will need to be
progressed. Organisationally, those action items in the Tunis Agenda that are new may
be best brought within the action lines established by the Geneva Summit.
3. WSIS implementation predominantly a national issue
It is clear that very many of the WSIS action lines will need to be implemented at the
national level by stakeholders, whether they be government, the private sector, civil
society or the technical and academic community, individually or in some combination.
This is clearly recognised in paragraph 100 of the Tunis Agenda. There will also be a
more limited role for regional implementation as recognised in paragraph 101.
Implementation at the international level (paragraph 102, 108. 109) is not necessarily
relevant therefore to all action items.
4. Paragraphs 108 and 109 explicitly tied to implementation ‘at the international level’
Building on our previous point, the role of action line moderators/facilitators as provided
for in paragraphs 108 and 109 of the Tunis Agenda is explicitly tied to multi-stakeholder
implementation ‘at the international level’. As such we understand the role of action line
moderators/facilitators to be confined to action lines which are truly international in
scope, not action lines which will be best implemented at the national or regional level.
Priority should therefore be given to identifying action lines at the ‘international level’
which may fall within the scope of paragraphs 108 and 109. Care needs to be taken not
to stray unnecessarily into action items at the national and regional levels. The provision
of help to national governments in their WSIS implementation efforts in paragraph 103 is
a separate issue within the context of UNGA Resolution 57/270B.
5. Multistakeholder involvement may take many forms
The term 'multistakeholder implementation' recognises, in our view, the reality that
many different stakeholders will be involved in WSIS implementation, acting
individually or in partnerships. It should not be read to infer implementation can only
-3-
and must always be undertaken by some form of formal, integrated multistakeholder
team operating under UN agency direction.
6. UN agency involvement subject to subparagraph 102(b) of Tunis Agenda
Consistent with subparagraph 102(b) of the Tunis Agenda, each UN agency involved in
WSIS implementation must act in accordance with its mandate and competencies, and
pursuant to decisions of their respective governing bodies, and within approved
resources. Leaders clearly concluded that agency engagement in WSIS implementation
should therefore subject to the constitutional and operational parameters set for each
agency and agencies should not take the WSIS decisions as an a priori approval to
exceed these.
7. Meaning of moderation/facilitation must be appropriate and well understood
It is essential that the meaning of ‘moderation/facilitation’ in the context of WSIS
action line implementation be appropriate and well understood by both
moderator/facilitators and those stakeholders undertaking actual implementation
actions. We are particularly concerned to ensure that moderation/facilitation is not seen
as top-down oversight or direction of stakeholders. Moderation/facilitation should
emphasise voluntary participation in implementation activities and the sharing of
information, particularly with a view to identifying needs and appropriate solutions and
preventing duplication. Raising awareness of the WSIS action lines and their potential
benefits for stakeholders, particularly in the developing world, should be an important
part of facilitation, particularly in terms of developing a culture of bottom-up, organic
multistakeholder development of the information society.
8. Stakeholder autonomy must be respected
Building on the previous point, Australia considers it is essential to the continued
development of the information society that it not only continue to be multistakeholder,
but that all stakeholders – and particularly the private sector and civil society - continue
to have space and opportunity to participate as they see fit, being able both to
participate in top-down activities and to take initiatives and to innovate in a bottom-up
manner, whether acting autonomously or in such combinations as they consider
appropriate. Amongst other things, this is important in ensuring the development of the
information society remains open to ideas from below, and does not become restricted
solely to the outcomes of WSIS.
Correspondingly, care needs to be taken to ensure that moderation/facilitation processes
do not lend themselves to a dependence on top-down processes, at the expense of
bottom-up initiative and the organic growth of the information society.
9. Terminology needs to be clear and precise
To facilitate discussion of WSIS implementation, terminology should be clear, well
understood and used consistently. In particular, a clear distinction needs to be made
between ‘implementation’ (the actual undertaking of actions) and
‘moderation/facilitation’ (higher level activities to assist with implementation).
Implementers can also be moderators/facilitators, but the roles are different. Both
-4-
implementation and moderation/facilitation can be undertaken by individual
stakeholders or ‘teams’ of stakeholders. ‘Multistakeholder implementation’ and
‘multistakeholder moderation/facilitation’ can refer to implementation and
moderation/facilitation being undertaken by multiple stakeholders operating
individually, in loose combinations or in integrated teams. Where integrated
multistakeholder teams are being referred to, this may need to be clear though
terminology like ‘implementation by a multistakeholder team’ and
‘moderation/facilitation by a multistakeholder team’.
10. Moderation/facilitation at international level only ‘when appropriate’
While paragraph 108 provides for the creation of action line moderators/facilitators, it is
‘when appropriate’, not as a matter of course. WSIS implementation should focus on
on-the-ground activities of practical benefit. Administrative superstructures should be kept
to a minimum and be lightweight, non-duplicative, effective and efficient. The costs and
benefits of creating a moderator/facilitator in relation to a particular action line needs to be
considered. Moderation/facilitation should focus on ‘adding value’; it should not be
undertaken for its own sake.
11. ‘Moderators/facilitators’ must be most appropriate stakeholders for the role
While paragraph 108 provides for the creation of action line moderators/facilitators, it
and the Annex do not mandate that they be UN agencies or that the UN agencies listed
in the Annex be the actual facilitators/moderators. In addition to facilitators/moderators
being created ‘when appropriate’, the Annex makes it clear that the UN agencies listed
are ‘possible facilitator/moderators’. That is, it is an ‘indicative and non-exhaustive
list’ (para.108), subject to further consideration, both from the broad perspective of
WSIS implementation and from the perspective of the agency and its governing body,
consistent with subparagraph 102(b). As UN agencies are only ‘possible
moderators/facilitators’ and the list is ‘indicative and non-exhaustive’, the role of
moderator/facilitator should also be open to non-UN stakeholders, either solely or in
partnership, if they are willing and best able to fulfil the role. In this context, the
organisation of action line meetings by particular UN agencies in advance of decisions
on actual moderators/facilitators appears premature.
12. Scope for moderators/facilitators to change over time
As the implementation of action lines is likely to be a long term undertaking and
organisational responsibilities and competencies may change, there should be flexibility
as to who is a moderator/facilitators and openness to change if this is warranted.
13. Moderators/facilitators selection should be based on substantive responsibility
If there is consensus that there is a need for a facilitator/moderator and that a UN
agency is appropriate, we consider the responsible UN agency should generally be the
agency with the substantive policy responsibility that best aligns with the issue
concerned. For example, in the case of e-learning, UNESCO; in the case of e-health,
the WHO; in the case of e-employment, the ILO, and so forth. Just because ICTs may
be the medium for delivery of a service, this is not sufficient reason for the ITU to take
a substantive role in an issue. This ensures subject-specific policy expertise can be
-5-
applied in assessing the use of ICTs in their delivery. This is the general approach
taken in assigning policy responsibility in Australia for such matters and, as far as we
are aware, most other countries. The involvement of any UN agency, however, should
always be subject to subparagraph 102(b), particularly the decision of their respective
governing bodies, having regard to overall priorities.
14. Need for, nature and role of, ‘Leading Facilitating Agencies’ must be clear
Paragraph 109 of the Tunis Agenda recognises the contributions of the ITU, UNESCO
and UNDP to the WSIS process and indicates they should play ‘leading facilitating
roles in implementation of the Plan of Action’ and organise a meeting in this context.
‘Leading facilitating roles’ should be based on real functional need; functions should
not be created to justify the roles. The ITU, UNESCO and UNDP should seek to fulfil
these ‘leading facilitating roles’ without the creation of elaborate administrative
superstructures. To the extent ‘leading facilitating roles’ are considered essential,
paragraph 109 does not preclude other stakeholders undertaking such roles and
consideration should be given to multistakeholder involvement at this level, if there is
interest in it.
It may be difficult and inappropriate for ‘leading facilitating agencies’ to set timeframes
for action as proposed in the draft Terms of Reference in the absence of detailed
knowledge of on-the-ground circumstances. Consideration should be given to whether
‘leading facilitating roles’ can be given adequate effect by the ITU, UNESCO and
UNDPO working collaboratively with action line moderators/facilitators and other
stakeholders, without the overly hierarchal structure that appears to be envisaged by
their special designation. See also point 16 below.
15. Moderation/facilitation not to detract from concrete implementation activities
Where UN agencies take on moderator/facilitator roles, they should take care that they
do not focus on these roles at the expense of actual implementation of WSIS action
items that may fall within their responsibilities.
16. Moderators/facilitators must coordinate and coordination must add value
Given the potential for overlap in implementing the WSIS action lines, sharing of
information to enable coordination of activities, to maximise outcomes from limited
resources, and to prevent duplication of effort is important. Care should be taken,
however, to ensure that coordination does not become an end in itself. Coordination
should be undertaken in a cooperative fashion, with a heavy emphasis on information
sharing. Mechanisms may be needed to ensure conflicts about overlapping interests and
activities can be resolved effectively and efficiently.
17. Any overall co-ordination/oversight of moderators/facilitators must add value
In his speech on WSIS implementation in Paris on 2 February 2006 (pp.6-7), the
Director-General of UNESCO raised the question of overall multistakeholder
coordination/oversight of the eleven action lines, including the involvement of the UN
Group on the Information Society (UNISG) within the Chief Executives’ Board (Tunis
Agenda, para.103) and the Commission on Science and Technology for Development
-6-
(CSTD) (Tunis Agenda, para.105). The comments draw attention to the considerable risk
of moderation/facilitation and oversight arrangements for WSIS implementation becoming
overly hierarchical, duplicative and bureaucratic. The possible roles of the UNISG and
CSTD should be considered in establishing arrangements at lower levels. In particular, it
is not clear how the proposed roles for the ITU, UNSECO and UNDP as ‘leading
facilitating agencies’ in implementation sit with the role envisaged for the UNISG ‘to
facilitate the implementation of WSIS outcomes’, particular when the ITU, UNSECO and
UNDP are to be considered as lead agencies within the UNISG (Tunis Agenda, para.103).
Considerable duplication appears to be involved. While WSIS’ decisions on roles need to
be recognised, utmost effort should be put into creating an overall implementation
structure that is effective but flat, lightweight, and efficient. It may be these issues cannot
be adequately resolved until the institutional issues in paragraphs 103-105 are resolved. In
all events, consistent with the whole thrust of WSIS, there needs to be appropriate
involvement of multiple stakeholders in this overall structure.
18. Reporting must be balanced and not burdensome
The draft terms of reference for leading facilitating agencies and moderators/facilitators
place considerable emphasis on reporting. While it is good practice to monitor and
confirm the achievement of required actions, appropriate emphasis need to be placed on
promoting the WSIS action items and encouraging and otherwise facilitating their
implementation. Without action, there will be no progress to report. Care needs to be
taken to ensure that reporting does not become burdensome, overly bureaucratic and an
end in itself. Annual reporting may well be excessive. As implementers on-the-ground
are best placed to report on progress and will want to publicise their successes,
emphasis might be placed on self-reporting. The Tunis Agenda already provides for
further ICT statistical work and ongoing stocktaking. Efforts should be made to draw
on activities in these areas, to the extent relevant to international level implementation.
Existing reporting mechanisms, particularly those of the OECD’s Development
Assistance Committee, should be used wherever possible to avoid potentially
duplicative administration and reporting.
-7-
ATTACHMENT 2
Questionnaire survey of opinions on WSIS follow-up and implementation
In advance of the consultation meeting of WSIS action line moderators/facilitators, to be held
on February 24th in Geneva, this questionnaire aims to provide an open framework for the
discussion and to secure inputs from the wider WSIS community. You may wish to answer any
or all of the questions below, and submit them by email to wsis-info@itu.int (please send as an
attachment). Alternatively you may prefer to use these questions to structure your inputs to the
discussion at the meeting.
Your details
Name: Colin Oliver, General Manager, International
Organisation/Affiliation: Department of Communications, IT and the Arts
Canberra, Australia
Email: ig&wsis@dcita.gov.au
My comments: Are made in a professional capacity; In a private capacity
Can be posted on the public website; Are intended for background
information
Questionnaire
1 The Tunis Agenda (Implementation & follow-up , para 108-109) foresees that
multi-stakeholder implementation will follow the WSIS themes and action
lines:
(a) What might be a good model for conceptualising the work on each
action line (i.e. multi-stakeholder teams)?
Fundamental to the conceptual model should be multistakeholder involvement on a
self-selecting basis, minimum top-down direction and maximum stakeholder
autonomy. Multi-stakeholder involvement individually and in various combinations
has been a key element in the development and growth of the information society.
This is an ongoing process. To a large extent the key WSIS outcome was to
formalise and provide a framework for activity that is, and has been, variously
engaged in by multiple stakeholders working towards the development of a global
information society. Whilst there may be some value in moderating/facilitating
these various activities, it is important to ensure that the facilitator/moderator role
does not impinge on multistakeholder autonomy as this may work against bottom-up
initiative, innovation and responsiveness to on-the-ground circumstances.
The Tunis Agenda (para 100-102) sets out the national, regional and international
roles in WSIS implementation. This should inform the work of
facilitators/moderators. Australia considers paragraphs 108-109 relate to
‘multistakeholder implementation at the international level’ which is a limited sub-
set of WSIS actions. Further, paragraph 108 clearly specifies that such multi-
stakeholder implementation should only be moderated/facilitated “when
appropriate”.
All arrangements should effective, but light touch, efficient and flexible.
-8-
Consideration should be given to the potential to use a website or other online
resources as a means of information sharing, networking and coordination which
stakeholders could use to organise themselves, thus reducing the need for elaborate,
formal institutional structures.
(b) What are key issues that might best be addressed by such teams?
There is some ambiguity as to whether this question relates to facilitator/moderator
teams or to multistakeholder teams engaged in the task of WSIS implementation. If
the latter, please see (a) above and we re-emphasise the need for autonomy and
flexibility so that these teams (whether formal or informal) may continue to
contribute to the organic growth of the information society according to their areas
of expertise. On the basis that it refers to facilitator/moderator teams, the key issue
is to ensure the matching of the most appropriate agency to the relevant action line.
This must be based on the agency’s substantive policy responsibility, core
competency and expertise so that its contribution adds value to the organic growth
of the information society.
(c ) How can synergies within and among the action-lines be enhanced?
• Effective coordination through communication and information sharing and a
concerted effort to minimise duplication.
• Ensuring the lead on particular action line be taken by the most appropriate
stakeholder – and where this is a UN agency, the agency with the most
appropriate substantive policy responsibility in the area concerned.
(d) How might linkages be made to follow-up on Internet governance?( e.g. with
regard to potential common areas of concern such as universal access and
reduction in costs)?
There are currently several processes in train, including the proposed Internet
Governance Forum to deal with Internet governance issues. These should be seen as
the primary vehicles for action in this area. Consequently in order to minimise
potential for confusion on these issues and unnecessary duplication, the WSIS
facilitator/moderator role should be minimal. Instead, there should be flexibility
and autonomy for relevant specialist organisations to contribute to the specific
Internet governance processes.
2. In the context of multi-stakeholder implementation, UN agencies have been
nominated as moderators/facilitators for each WSIS action line.
(a) What do see as key responsibilities of the facilitators? (see draft TOR)
Should additional moderators/facilitators be added to the list and if so how
should they be identified?
Given the range of multiple stakeholders currently involved in various aspects of
WSIS related implementation activities, the facilitator/moderator role must be
minimalist, providing flexibility and autonomy to multiple stakeholders. This will
allow consideration of local circumstances and foster bottom-up initiative and
innovation, while enhancing efficiency and minimising scope for duplication.
Promoting awareness of the WSIS action lines and their potential benefit to
stakeholders, particularly in developing countries to encourage bottom-up
initiatives, may be useful. This would be in addition to identifying and referring
needs/issues to the relevant stakeholders, and facilitating information sharing on
-9-
possible practical solutions. A lightweight monitoring role facilitating coordination
and information sharing between the various stakeholders appears appropriate
(Tunis Agenda, para. 110), though full consideration should be given to self
reporting.
Given the indicative, non-exhaustive nature of the list of facilitators/moderators
identified in the Annex to the Tunis Agenda, it is appropriate that other
organisations be able to nominate as possible moderators/facilitators.
(b) Work will likely involve a combination of online sharing and
collaboration and meetings. What outcome would you expect from a
meeting of the moderators/ facilitators of the action-lines?
The question is ambiguous in terms of whether it is asking about substantive
outcomes or reporting to the public. In terms of substantive outcomes, we would
expect cross-checking that action lines are being covered (ie. no gaps), are not being
duplicated (ie. no overlaps) and the identification of possible synergies between
action lines. Sharing of experience that may be of mutual interest and benefit.
Meetings should not, however, simply be held for the sake of meeting. In terms of
reporting, if warranted, a short (1-2 page) public report confirming progress or
otherwise may be of interest to stakeholders. Reporting should not involve
excessive resources. Minutes might be published for those interested.
(c) What might be innovative ways of reporting on progress, and sharing
information on key challenges and priorities for implementation? How
might results be tracked?
The Tunis Agenda has provided for various reporting processes on WSIS
implementation, including periodic evaluations (para. 112), using the mechanism set
out in paragraphs 113-120. Caution must be exercised to prevent duplication and
creating an undue burden. Use of self-reporting is preferred. Use of ICTs and
online processes is encouraged to share information and maximise participation.
2 The Tunis Agenda has a strong development focus.
(a) How can developing country participation be enhanced?
We understand the question to refer to enhanced participation in the moderation
/facilitation of ‘implementation at the international level’. A key to enhancing
participation is to ensure that the process generates productive outcomes of value and
relevance to developing countries. Appropriate and efficient use of ICTs may be helpful
to achieve articulated development outcomes within these countries. In providing for
online participation, consideration should be given to accessibility issues, for example,
possible bandwidth constraints and the needs of people with disabilities.
(b) In what ways could the multi-stakeholder implementation process
contribute to facilitating action at the national level, e.g. capacity-
building and innovation in policy and/or implementation?
We assume this question is referring to ‘multistakeholder implementation at the
international level’ (para.108) and moderation/facilitation in that context. As noted
above, we consider paragraph 108 only refers to WSIS action items requiring
implementation at the international level (ie. ‘international implementation’). We
consider this a fairly limited set of WSIS action times. Any international level activities
would need to be targeted at the national level to have relevance at that level. The role
- -
10
of UN agencies and other intergovernmental organisations in helping national
governments appears to be covered in paragraph 103, which refers to UNGA Resolution
57/270B. Action at the national level is essentially a matter for national stakeholders.
Decisions on utilising the results of international implementation processes at the
national (and regional levels) would depend on the relevance and utility of the
international level actions at these lower levels.
(c ) How might the mainstreaming of ICT into other priority development
interventions and programmes be facilitated?
The precise relevance of this question to the broader question of how action line
moderation/facilitation at the international level should be undertaken is not clear to us,
but we assume it goes to how action lines calling for ICT mainstreaming can be
advanced.
Care must be taken not to confuse action items that require international implementation
and those that will be implemented at national levels. We generally envisage ICT
mainstreaming being considered at the national level, for examine in the context of
developing national e-strategies and development strategies, consistent with national
priorities (para.100). As a general observation, ICT mainstreaming is a very broad and
complex issue that would seem to warrant expert advice from professionals in the field.
As a start, information sharing initiatives that demonstrate how ICTs have been
mainstreamed and the benefits of mainstreaming ICTs into other development areas
such as e-learning, e-health etc may be useful.
3 Do you have any other comments, suggestions or questions that should be
addressed?
It must be clear what precisely WSIS implementation at the international level entails.
As noted, we consider it refers specifically to items requiring action at the international
level, not regional and national levels. As such it is likely to be a limited area of
activity, not warranting elaborate administrative superstructures. Interaction between
implementation at various levels needs to be considered carefully in the contexts of
paragraph 103 as well as paragraphs 108 and 109.
The functions involved in the moderator/facilitator role must be clearly defined. In
defining this role, it should be noted that para 108 clearly specifies that such multi-
stakeholder implementation should only be moderated/facilitated “when appropriate”.
Furthermore, given the range of multistakeholder activity in WSIS related
implementation measures, it is important that the proposed moderator/facilitator role is
not prescriptive and instead provides flexibility and autonomy to related
multistakeholder activity whilst facilitating coordination and information exchanges. It
is important that the appropriate facilitator/moderator is matched to the appropriate
action line in keeping with their areas of core competency as required by para 102(b) of
the Tunis Agenda.
Other points we consider worth raising are set out in our separate, accompanying
contribution – ‘WSIS Implementation Process at the International Level - Points for
Consideration’.
Thank you. Please send your response to wsis-info@itu.int.