[WSIS CS-Plenary] recommendations for WGIG

[Taran Rampersad]

Two Things.


(1) I think everyone involved in the nominations will be the first to
admit that they simply did what they thought was best within the time
frame that they were given. I, for one, am not overly happy about the
way things have worked out - and yet, I am not overly sad.

My only concern is that, like friend Martin, I do not think that Civil
Society is being properly represented - but for different reasons. The
WGIG is of great importance, since it seems apparent that the output
from this working group would feed other working groups. However,
previous discussion has pointed out that there are logistics issues,
which I well understand. The problem is not within the WGIG's
nominations, instead the problem is that the WGIG was not properly
defined prior to nominations.... and I do not think that the nominees
themselves had input on defining the WGIG either. It's a criticism, yes,
but I think it's a valid criticism - and one which makes at least a few
people wonder on the usefulness of the WGIG's outputs.

Public articles on the outputs of the last WSIS were less than stellar.
I hope that Tunisia is seen as more productive; I am no expert on these
matters of such large and inclusive conferences, but I think my concern
is worth considering.

Martin Olivera wrote:

>Dear Bertrand, 
>
>thanks for your answer. 
>35 nominations were received from the different geographic 
>  
>
>>and thematic caucuses; given the expectation that the WGIG 
>>itself is going to be about 30 people, the goal was to 
>>identify a slate of about 10 people, which, given the effort 
>>at geographical balance, made about 2 names per region.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>I am concerned by the way the people is selected/voted/
>
>I understand and share the idea, but you and all should know that Carlos
>Afonso and Raul Echebarria together with some other people from LAC left
>out the LAC caucus list because of they do not like discussions terms
>there (especially some comments about RITS, the organization of Carlos
>Afonso, have had relations with organizations supporting G-8 vision of
>Information Society, I do not know if this is true or not, and anyone
>could define if it is good or not, I am not judging them, but the
>attitude of feeling offended by the comments, going away and create a
>new LAC "private club" caucus just for friends does not seem a good
>attitude).
>  
>


(2) I apologize to the CS Plenary for my response here, but I find it
necessary to defend a choice that I was forced to make, and by proxy
defend a choice others were forced to make. This was not the first time
that the situation within the Latin American Caucus has been presented
here in this light - but I was unable to respond before. Now I can.

Martin, you know my stance on this because we have had this discussion
in private. You were disappointed in my choice, and I was disappointed
in your disappointment.

The comments about a 'private club' are offensive and oversimplistic. It
was necessary to create an area for discussion where discussion itself
could take place. While the LAC list states that it is open, it is only
open in a technological sense. There's little room for discussion on the
list, from my experience - and from my review of the Open Archives of
that list. As someone who came in during the middle of the fracas, as
someone who reviewed the archives and as someone who is from the
Caribbean and is supposed to have representation within the LAC, I found
the list wanting in many regards. I think that comments about RITs and
so forth were only a part of the issue, and that the real issue was that
there was no actual discussion possible. This included responses to the
RITs comments.

I am certain that members of the present LAC list have things worth
saying. I will not demean their inputs in any way, and I don't know that
anyone has. However, I will say that the group that is working outside
of the LAC list also has opinions and thoughts that are worth hearing,
and they do incorporate those that strong voices have shouted on the LAC
list - though, perhaps, not at the volume some would like. More
importantly to me, they have shown an active interest in the Caribbean -
through words and action.

I have no problems working with people on the new list, which we hope to
have transparent at some point. People within the region do have the
Right to an area where they can work without being constantly put into
defensive positions. These defensive positions are exemplified by the 5
paragraphs I have just written defending my choice, which I could have
spent continuing an Advocacy Paper on ICT for CARICOM - which members of
the 'private accused' created in a public forum (CIVIC email list; ICA
Caribbean) within the Caribbean. These people are interested, they
represent organizations who are interested. There is no doubt that
members of the LAC list are also interested in worthwhile things, and I
urge them to forge their swords into ploughshares instead of creating
the need for responses such as this.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

" It requires greater courage to preserve inner freedom, to move on in one's inward journey into new realms, than to stand defiantly for outer freedom."— Rollo May