A number of questions were raised during the discussion. These raised the issues of ATAC activity since the first ATAC meeting, how to deal with obstacles to implementation at country level and feedback mechanisms between ECA and ATAC. The Chair noted that ATAC members had been asked to participate as individuals. He felt that two items discussed at the first ATAC meeting that were not resolved with adequate clarity were ATAC’s Terms of Reference and feedback mechanisms. After a year ATAC was now in a better position to define these mechanisms. He also explained that individual ATAC members had done much work on behalf of the African Information Society Initiative, but the Committee needed to find a better mechanism for collating this work into the body of ATAC work. During the course of this meeting Committee members would elaborate on their activities on behalf of AISI undertaken during the year since the last meeting.

The ECA secretariat noted that the review of the ATAC terms of reference had purposely been put on the second day of the agenda so that members would have greater clarity at that time with regard to what ATAC could and should do in fulfilling its mandate. They added that ATAC was still in a learning process. While some United Nations’ committees meet only to discuss documents, reports and proposals, ECA expected more interactivity with ATAC. While the formal way of working meant meeting once a year, there was much to do between meetings. ATAC members were not expected to implement AISI projects but they were mandated to speak on behalf of AISI. ECA needed the assistance of ATAC in its key coordination role. ATAC members themselves promoted subregional balance because ATAC members were ambassadors and promoters of AISI. ECA, however, was concerned about the workload of ATAC members, as they all are busy professionals with many national and international commitments. One ironic aspect was that ATAC, which defined itself through information and communication technology was not active in using ICTs for its own functioning. Participation on the atac-cl list had been uneven and not sustained. ECA was considering using facilitators to promote activity on discussion lists (mailing lists). In the previous year, many documents had been posted without receiving comments. ECA hoped that there would be more activity in the coming year. Observers commented that the use of facilitators was a good idea, as they could keep discussion going and ensure that critical needs were addressed. If successful, ATAC could become a model for other groups trying to work together electronically.

(Agenda item 5) Report on ECA’s implementation of AISI, 1997-98 Documentation: Secretariat Powerpoint presentation and draft report on Global Connectivity Conference. The purpose of the ECA report was to build a common information base for the discussion of subsequent agenda items. ATAC members reported briefly on their activities in AISI implementation. Members of ATAC reported on activities they had undertaken during the course of the year which represented implementation of AISI. The Chair himself was doing work for the Commonwealth Secretariat involving 14 countries on how academic institutions could be involved in AISI implementation. Members from South Africa and Ghana reported what they had been doing in their respective countries and subregions. Discussion centred on how academic institutions in Africa could be involved in the implementation of AISI. The chair congratulated ECA on its achievements, in particular considering their limited resources. He also noted that AISI had national, regional and international dimensions. It was important that the ECA Conference of Ministers takes note of all these dimensions, but particularly the national one because this was to be the crux of AISI implementation. Members and observers raised a number of questions to clarify various aspects of AISI implementation. ECA was asked to describe its partnership with the African Development Bank and the Organisation of African Unity. ECA said that it operated as part of a Joint Secretariat with the OAU and ADB, and that many activities were undertaken or supported jointly. As many of the ECA AISI activities implementation was done in partnership, the question of ownership arose from ATAC members. They also requested a clear definition of ‘partnership’ and more in depth reporting on the issue. This subsequently took place in the discussion of the report of the Partnership on Information and Communication Technologies in Africa (PICTA) meeting. Members and observers also queried the omission of education from the listing of sector activities. The Secretariat replied that while a great deal of activity had not taken place in the past year with regard to education, the involvement of ECA in GAIT with IDRC and in the Global Knowledge Partnership included a number of education-related activities. More were planned for the future. A request was also made for more reporting on national information policy initiatives. Members and observers also wanted to know about monitoring AISI implementation at country level as well as about electronic commerce. The Secretariat said that ECA with the Global Information Infrastructure Commission had presented a joint programme on electronic commerce at Africa Telecom ’98 in Johannesburg. More activities on electronic commerce would emerge in future plans, particularly those related to the development of the information economy in Africa, which would be outlined in the ECA 2000-2001 work programme. The Committee endorsed the suggestion that ECA’s reporting on AISI implementation be presented in a sectorally organised matrix (health, education, etc.) that reflected on-going activities. It was also suggested that AISI needed to develop a clear financing strategy. Regarding the report of the Conference on Global Connectivity for Africa (GCA) held in Addis Ababa from 2-4 June 1998, Michael R. Jensen reported on behalf of the ECA AISI secretariat that its aim had been to look at all possible connectivity options, with major focus on attracting private sector investment to this area in Africa. A large number of recommendations had emerged. The report of the Conference was now being edited for publication in print and on the Web. ATAC meeting participants raised questions on how recommendations could be followed up, especially those on joint procurement by small neighboring countries. The secretariat responded that the GCA report was meant to be an input to national policy formulation processes; it would also be forwarded to the ECA Conference of Ministers.

The Chairperson’s closing comments were that the report was regarded as informative and reflective of the effort that was being put into AISI implementation. He dealt with the issue of tracking AISI implementation, which was taking place at national, regional and international levels. As AISI was a framework for the implementation of African information infrastructure and not a specific set of actions, what constituted AISI implementation could be somewhat unclear. However, this also meant that many things were taking place in the region that contributed to AISI goals but that were not being tracked. He stressed the need for a balance on reporting between country level, ECA level and partners level. He felt that one task of ATAC might be to encourage compilation of information on what is happening at country level.

(Agenda Item 6) Report on meeting of Partnership for Information and Communication Technologies in Africa, October 1998 Documentation: Draft report of PICTA meeting. PICTA was described as being an informal non-institutional body, based on a common willingness to work together. The first meeting of a regional coordinating body of donor and executing agency partners in support of AISI had taken place in Addis Ababa in 1996; PICTA was established in Rabat in 1997, and subsequent meetings had taken place in Addis Ababa in 1997 and in Gammarth, Tunisia in 1998. In addition, smaller meetings had convened at major meetings related to PICTA concerns and members communicated continuously through the picta-cl discussion list. Comments stressed that PICTA was a group of donors, and the essential point was the outcome of their activity rather than the process of their meeting. However, members felt that the fact of their meeting to collaborate on joint programmes and avoid duplication of scarce resources was unique and to be commended as donor action in the field is generally not well coordinated and resources not used efficiently. Any forum that can facilitate greater coordination was positive. The question was raised whether initiatives in the field involved in AISI implementation such as Sangonet were represented in PICTA implementation. It was explained that PICTA had been established as a vehicle for donor and major executing agency cooperation. It was noted that donors have a particular way of working, and this can differ very much from how other implementing agencies work. Projects could be hampered by lack of understanding between donors and implementers. With regard to facilitating exchanges between PICTA and organizations and individuals working in the field, it was noted that the PICTA process takes it as a given that each agency has its own way of identifying constituencies and their needs. Much discussion at PICTA takes place informally. Its strength has been that it is small and informal. The ECA secretariat noted that there had not been as much bilateral participation in PICTA as expected. This might be because PICTA is not regarded as a formal body. Possibly this was also because the multi-lateral partners did not require as formal a process of feedback as the bilateral agencies do. Another question centred on how the collection of projects and initiatives represented at PICTA impact at the grassroots level. The secretariat said that this was the major concern of the IDRC-Acacia ICT-SCAN research project of which ECA was the executing agency on phase one. Its results, it would hoped, would fill many knowledge gaps and provide usable information on the impact of PICTA projects at grassroots level. In addition, there was some information on impact in the AI-AIMS database on AISI projects which Bellanet maintains for PICTA. It was noted that IDRC already has considerable experience in cross-evaluating projects related to ICT and development in Africa. In looking at the PICTA work programme members noted that there did not appear to be a component on human resource development. If human resource development was included within the specific activities, was this the most efficacious way to address specific ICT issues? The response indicated that PICTA did have a work programme on training and capacity building, but that human resource development was also part of each constituent area of the PICTA work programme. In addition to those groups represented in PICTA, ATAC members stressed that more focus was needed on private sector partnership building. Some initiative may have been lost as it had been assumed that GIIC would be mobilising the private sector; however not much had taken place in this area and must remained to be done. PICTA should attempt to be more proactive in making resource allocation more efficient, it was felt. It could do more in the area of evaluation and learning, particularly in documenting the lessons learned from its own experiences. Does this mean that PICTA define priorities? Should PICTA set agendas for donor agencies? Should PICTA coordinate donor activities? ATAC felt that ECA as the representative of African member states could help shape the agenda of PICTA members in line with member States’ priorities.

ATAC members felt that there remained a need for forums that would allow frank exchanges between donors and implementers- one vehicle for this might be an annual open forum to discuss African Information Society initiatives. The involvement of the private sector both in such a forum as well as in AISI as a whole was particularly important. African Connection was attempting to establish such a forum in the area of telecommunications infrastructure in the region. The Seretariat added that PICTA was still a new body and feeling its way in many areas. In the future ECA will try to have ATAC meetings just before the annual PICTA meeting so that ATAC recommendations could come directly to PICTA. It was stressed that while there are joint ‘PICTA activities and projects’, PICTA was essentially a mechanism for sharing information. The Chair concluded that the PICTA partnership was an on-going process; it was unique in the ICT area and needed to be encouraged.

(Agenda Item 7) ECA’s draft work programme in promoting information and communications technologies for development, 2000-2001 Documentation: Logical Framework: Harnessing Information for Development Subprogramme 4 [activities related to AISI] ECA explained the format of the document, which was developed to meet the requirements of United Nations’ directives on drafting biennial work programmes. ATAC needed to review the document to see if there were areas that were not covered, or were better covered by others and to advise ECA whether it was moving in the right direction. A suggestion was made to add to the objectives for the biennium: ‘To enhance the positive impact of ICTs on integrated social and economic development in Africa.’ Studies were very important in recording and monitoring what was happening in ICT development in the region. Important programme areas to be included were those involving gender, ICTs in governence and democratisation and in education; and content development. Education was particularly important. Community learning centres and telecentres could promote education. ATAC felt there was a need to make indicators for results more specific, e.g. in the case of numbers of Africans participating in the information society, there was need to emphasise the geographical location of these participating Africans.

While telecentres were an important indicator, others were also needed, e.g. schools, training centres, women’s organisations, etc. There was a danger of over-focus on telecentres; other indicators of dissemination to rural areas should be examined, such as radio. Indicators for results were needed to reflect geographical distinctions, e.g. urban rural, and sectoral specificity, e.g. education, health, in the targets that have been set. There should also be references to gender.

Agenda Item 8) ECA potential collaboration with African Ministers of Communications on implementation of African Connection. Documentation: African Connection proposal; brochure tabled by South African (SA) Department of Communications

Ms. Feroza Thomas and Mr. Connie Molusi from the SA Department of Communications joined the meeting.

African Connection had emerged in preparation for Africa Telecom 98 (ITU). It had been endorsed by the African Ministers of Telecommunication. The Connection secretariat drafted a project proposal that outlines activities in modular areas:

• Special Programmes for Least Developed Countries and Rural Telecommunications Development

  Policy and Regulatory Frameworks

  Human Resources Development

  Programme for Financing and Funding Telecommunications Development in Africa

  African Telecommunications Priority Projects

• Programme for the Development of the Information Society in Africa

The purpose of the discussion at the ATAC meeting was to pursue effective collaboration between this initiative and ECA/ATAC. Both initiatives (AISI and African connection) have serving Africa in its entry into the information age as a priority; therefore it is necessary to consider collaboration and coordination on areas of convergence. While both initiatives share goals, ECA understood African Connection as being more focused in terms of objectives and target participants than ECA, which works more broadly on overall ict issues. The idea of African Connection was not to usurp other initiatives, but to make telecommunications in Africa work as this underpins all other AISI development. Efforts were being made to work interactively with other initiatives. Observers noted that the relationship between African Connection and AISI could and should be worked out over time. African Connection addressed the very important question of political commitment. A suggestion was made to look at cooperation at the level of knowledge based activities and inclusion of ECA representatives in the African Connection policy and Action Framework teams (page 17 of African Connection brochure). The Connection’s database of experts in the field and of human resources institutions would be important resources to share with ECA and others. It was pointed out that ECA was not mentioned on page 20, paragraph 21 (Schedule of Agreements) along with other institutions such as OAU, ITU etc. where it might naturally fit.

The South Africa Department of Communication proposed that a directory be compiled of related initiatives so that coordination and integration can be facilitated.

African Connection is hoping to convene meetings of review committees that can function as validation organs to facilitate debate and assess whether there is alignment between various initiatives.

The Chair commented that ECA needs to ensure that there is linking between ECA’s AISI implementation and other initiatives. As African Connection is only one of many such possible initiatives they need to consider a model for such linking. The AISI Action Framework covers telecommunications infrastructure at the level of vision. It is therefore crucial that there is partnership with African Connection at the level of implementation. ECA expressed its commitment to working with African Connection and thanked the DOC team for clarifying ECA and ATAC’s understanding of what their contribution could be. ECA would work with African connection on ways to formalize their collaboration.

(Agenda item 9) ECA proposal for the implementation of AISI Documentation: Harnessing information for development proposal; Technology Centre for Africa proposal The agenda item was introduced by Ms.Karima Bounemra Ben Soltane and presented by Ms. Nancy Hafkin. ECA requested the advice, comment and counsel of participants. All expressed their support for the proposal. ATAC congratulated ECA on the quality of the document and the hard work that had been done. On the Harnessing information for development proposal, participants found that knowledge base data collection activities outlined in the "Harnessing" proposal were very ambitious. ECA could do the core of the work, then work through other networks to complement their efforts. This modus operandi was a best practice that ECA should champion. In terms of areas covered, there was need to include work on governance. While this might be sensitive to member States, it was an essential area where much could be achieved. It was noted that a reference to gender should be added to paragraph 8 of the "Harnessing" document. The idea of developing model NICI plans was very useful; the material could be placed on CD-ROM for easy distribution. In terms of exchanges of staff, exchanges should not be restricted to Africa countries. Countries outside of Africa could be very good learning environments. ECA might wish to consider the need for a Heads of State meeting on information and communication technology for development. The question was raised whether in training, ECA had thought of working with existing sub-regional information science training schools on training? ECA replied that implementation would take place in the context of networks and partnerships but that it was already working with them. In the activities related to libraries, ATAC pointed out that public libraries were as important in Africa as university and research libraries. On information management, information should be managed and presented in such a way that external use could be made of it, and so that duplication of effort can be avoided. Use should be made of emerging techniques in DML and XML. The ECA Secretariat said that members’ comments would be taken account of and a new draft of the proposal would be produced. On the Technology Centre, ATAC members felt that as key people pass through Addis already this was an opportunity that should be utilised. If top thinkers could be exposed to the concepts of the knowledge society while they were meeting this could have great impact on how they implement these concepts back home. An observer suggested that the policy awareness approach should not be on adopting information technology as a catch-up tool but rather at using ict for problem solving to get ahead of the game and into knowledge society. If technology could be used during meetings in ECA in a knowledge oriented way this also would have enormous impact on the member States. In response to a question on how did the African Technology Centre proposal interface with ‘centres of excellence’, ECA replied that they were committed to not duplicating efforts of others. There was meant to be no duplication with the training done by AFRALTI and ESMT. Education could be done in a network fashion, including other centres of excellence. ECA was reminded of the need to share through Web dissemination any training materials developed. ATAC raised the question as to whether meeting participants could also participate in training. It was noted that training would take place in parallel to meetings and the associates of ministers would be targeted for participation. The technology centre should not focus on technical components, members said, but rather on policy, which was an issue common to different countries. Technology needs and levels of development vary from country to country. The Technology Centre should not take on technical training which was best left to existing institutes, centres and the private sector. Information literacy would be included in the training curriculum only in so far as it contributed to information society awareness on the part of African planners and decision makers. ATAC was concerned that the Technology Centre not be ECA’s only training activity. ATAC members felt that the approach to implementing the proposal was too top down. To succeed it needed to be more bottom up, with contributions from end-users. Members also suggested that distance learning components should be built into the Technology Centre from its inception. Its purposes could also be well served by the development of a database of African experts.

Throughout ECA needed to consider the need for simplification of knowledge- using "repacking" techniques", using terms and language so that AISI and information technology concepts were accessible to the layperson. Technology demonstrations were very useful tools. One important thing that is not in the document but that fit under the project objective was making governments aware of the role of the private sector in information society development.

(Agenda Item 10) Review of ATAC terms of reference Documentation: ATAC terms of reference (revised) It was agreed that there was need to revise its terms of reference to better serve the aims of AISI. A major aim is for ATAC to serve as a model for the functioning of similar groups. The terms of reference should include ATAC’s objectives and why it was set up. It was felt that a discussion of the ATAC working mechanism and ATAC model of utilizing electronic communications should also be discussed under this agenda item. Expansion is needed on tasks and responsibilities of members and officers in order to give clarity and direction. Throughout it should be borne in mind that the Committee should be technical, advising ECA on concrete aspects of its programme in ICTs for development. The mechanism of communication and coordination should be outlined and explained. This will help with evaluation. As in-person meetings were held only once a year, and there is some flexibility in setting dates, ATAC members felt it was legitimate to expect ATAC members to attend, unless there is some personal or health emergency. The ECA Executive Secretary could replace members who can not attend meetings. The agenda and the process of meeting, as well as reporting, should be linked to the expected results to ensure that they are achieved. Members felt that meeting once a year is not enough since ICTs develop at a great pace. Two meetings a year would enable ATAC members to look better at ECA implementation and plans. It was thus decided to have one electronic meeting a year. This could take the shape of dedicated mailing list time or a private newsgroup, with an agenda and documents for discussion. Regarding the in-person meetings, members felt that three-day meetings were more valuable than those of two days. For an ATAC meeting to take place at least 3 members need to be present. A suggestion was also made to expand the size of ATAC- to 8 members with a quorum of 5. ATAC members welcomed observer participation based on criteria and an agreed on process. ATAC members are accountable, but observers are not. Invitations can be made by ECA but on behalf of ATAC. ATAC members will comment and give approval on observers. Observers said that would be happy to participate on the atac-cl discussion.

Specific textual comments of the draft revised terms of reference:

• Point 14 should be followed when meetings are set.

  Paragraph 3: begin sentence with "ATAC members will act, etc."

  Under "conditions of service" the reference should be to per diem or DSA rather than accommodation.

• The point was raised as to whether it was realistic for ATAC members to "evaluate the results of implementation"…(paragraph 1). This should be rephrased to reflect that ATAC does not carry out evaluation, rather they advise on it.

Based on the comments received on the draft terms of reference, the secretariat will produce a revised draft, which will be posted for comment and finalisation to the list.

(Agenda Item 11) Developing a methodology for AISI implementation The purpose of this discussion was to brainstorm on the methodology for measuring implementation and measuring impact of AISI. Meeting participants felt it was important to evaluate at both micro and macro level. Each activity should have evaluation built in at project level. Micro evaluations could then become part of the sum total of evaluation. It was suggested that evaluation could proceed by collating work done already and adding analysis of it to result in an overview. This could be complemented by quantitative research on specific sectors, but the choice of sectors was key. Regarding AISI, ATAC was looking at evaluating impact as well as measuring implementation. It is also looking at evaluation of ECA’s work. The Secretariat stressed that it was mainly concerned with the question of whether the information society in Africa was growing, and if so, why. Secondly, its concern was how to measure the connection between access to information and changes in development. IDRC was involved in mainly micro level evaluation, particularly in using CIET social audit methodology in telecentre evaluation. A suggestion was made to work with academics in undertaking evaluation. Evaluation materials could consist of theme reports, country reports, sector reports, selective quantitative in sectors (e.g. schools) and possibly self-evaluation tools. It was suggested that ECA needed to develop a taxonomy of what AISI implementation means. This would make it easier to measure implementation. The national process is critical as AISI focuses on national level, national reports are very important. As country reports by implication are comparative, they create incentives for countries to speed up implementation. For country reports to be useful, commonly accepted and defined indicators needed to be used.

ATAC suggested that ECA urge the Conference of Ministers of Planning and Economic Development to pass a resolution seeking reports from member States to get input on growth in AISI implementation. The result could be country comparative reports.

(Agenda Item 12) Recommendations on matters related to ICT development in Africa to be brought to the ECA Conference of Ministers of Planning and Development, April-May 1999 ECA explained that the ECA Conference of Ministers was a biannual meeting; thus recommendations from both the 1997 and 1998 ATAC meetings could be put forth. If recommendations from ATAC come up as resolutions and if passed, they would be integrated into the DISD programme. The hope for this year would be to articulate what ATAC wants, which will then become a framework of a semi-compulsory report. ATAC suggested that ECA draft a resolution to be presented to the Conference of Ministers requesting ECA member States to report on the measures they had taken to implement AISI. This would give ECA information on national policies and plans, as well as implementation of sectoral applications. ECA would need to design a questionnaire to elicit the information. The data collected would be an important input to AISI evaluation.

It was hoped that the resolution could also emphasise the importance of AISI implementation and of ministers’ ongoing commitment to work with ECA in implementing AISI. It could also ask member States to commit to create an enabling environment to permit the rapid development of information development.

(Agenda Item 13) Any other business (including venue and date of next meeting)

As discussed, there would be one online and one face-to-face meeting in the coming year. The next online meeting would be from 17-21 May 1999. The next face to face meeting would be from 18-22 October 1999, directly preceding the annual PICTA meeting. (ATAC and PICTA would each meet for 2.5 days). The venue would be worked out cooperatively.

(Agenda Item 14) Closing The chairperson thanked ECA for keeping the promise of arranging a second ATAC meeting. It was regretful that not all ATAC members could attend. ATAC asked the ECA secretariat to convey its thanks and commitment to the ECA Executive Secretary. All participants were thanked for their frank comments. Face to face contact remains important, in spite of being able to connect electronically. ATAC’s involvement is on a voluntary basis, and the intention is to be of assistance. The secretariat was thanked for their excellent work. All the officers were thanked for their work, as was the host of the meeting. ECA expressed its gratitude for the input, food for thought and invaluable insights. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS There was need for a more effective ATAC working mechanism that could serve as a model for groups that are remotely located that work electronically; this could become an ATAC model. ATAC terms of reference needed to be revised to serve better the aims of AISI.

On AISI implementation:
While data collection was needed, so too was data analysis, e.g. learning from experiences, such as those of Namibia and Mozambique. Information sharing is not only a multi-directional flow, but also based on drawing conclusions.

ATAC suggested that the ECA reconsider the concept of ‘partnership’ and report on it in greater depth, taking into account all its dimensions (not only donors and major executing agencies, but including national level, ngo and private sector partners).

With reference to National Information Policy Initiatives ATAC requested that there be more reporting on this as AISI implementation was very much aimed at exactly this level.

On PICTA:
ATAC congratulated PICTA for its successes in facilitating information exchange and greater collaboration in the implementation of the AISI.

ATAC recognised that ECA is the only organisation in Africa that has an overview of AISI implementation in Africa, that it is mandated to represent, and report to, governments, and is therefore a unique interlocutor in the PICTA context. ATAC therefore felt that ECA has the responsibility to play a leading role in PICTA and encouraged it to continue to do so.ATAC encouraged PICTA partners to participate in collaborative monitoring and evaluation of ICT projects and programmes. This will enable ATAC, ECA and all other participants in AISI implementation, to learn from the experience of PICTA partners through collaborative monitoring and evaluation of ICT and development projects and programmes. ATAC members were particularly concerned that PICTA members document their experiences and lessons learned for the benefit of all dealing with ICTs in Africa.ATAC members should comment on the final report of PICTA meeting with a view to giving ATAC reflection on whether PICTA was addressing concerns that ATAC identified as priorities. ATAC recommended that ECA and PICTA attempt to create forums for the participation of people and institutions involved in AISI on the ground.

ATAC recommended that in order to ensure private sector participation in AISI implementation, ECA, in partnership with PICTA, should attempt to create a forum that would focus on mobilising the private sector.

On ECA’s draft work plan for 2000-2001 in promoting ICTs for development:
ATAC endorsed the broad lines of the work plan as being in line with AISI objectives.At the same time as recognising the need for planning, ECA needed to remain flexible to allow for change; in the rapidly changing ICT world this is a necessity.

ECA needs to make indicators for results more specific, e.g. in the case of numbers of African participating in the information society need to emphasise the geographical location of these participating Africans. They should also be indicators that can be realistically measured. Indicators also need to reflect sectoral specificity, e.g. education, health, in the targets that have been set. There should also be references to gender as well as to small and medium-scale enterprises.

On African Connection
ATAC endorsed the African Connection proposal. It was felt that ECA could play an important role in its implementation; ECA had a leadership role that could help give guidance to African Connection and which could help shape it.

On AISI evaluation
ATAC requested ECA to develop a draft resolution on country reports that could be used to measure the implementation of AISI in the region, to be tabled at the next meeting of the ECA Conference of Ministers. The resolution should request Ministers to affirm their commitment to AISI and to working with ECA in AISI implementation. Specifically they should be asked to participation in AISI evaluation by:

Submitting country NICI and other AISI plans

Submitting status reports and information (e.g. through a questionnaire)