Good morning 

I agree with many of your observations in this thoughtful piece which also notes the useful remarks from Fiona and Anriette.  

While of course this is only a Zero Draft it is incumbent on us to point out where it has failed to imclude issues (such as connectivity, multilingualism and the role of ITU and UNESCO) as much as where it has said things which are problematic. I hope governments will be ready to suggest new and additional texts as well as noting where draft can be improved (such as on what IGF does and role of UN CSTD). 

Best

Nigel 

 

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

Thanks for those who have shared their first impressions already, it is really helpful to hear these perspectives. Here are some of my initial observations:

 

Firstly, I’d like to echo Anriette and Fiona’sconcerns about the connectivity section. No mention of complementary connectivity and networking solutions, such as Community Networks. And a missed opportunity to highlight innovative ways to use funding mechanisms and public resources, such as Spectrum and Universal Service Funds.

 

Additionally, despite them underscoring the role of existing agencies and mechanisms such as WSIS, ITU, UNCTAD, the IGF, etc. Paras 61 and 65 are concerning. Para 60 suggests that they will consider how WSIS can support the practical implementation of the commitments and actions by adapting the WSIS action lines. 

 

Existing mechanisms such as the CSTD, WSIS Forum, or an evolved IGF are opportunities to review the progress, opportunities, and challenges. So, the proposal for the high-level review of the GDC reads as a veiled attempt of retaining the DCF and the draft can do without it, though it does signal an insistence on having something in NY.