[WSIS CS-Plenary] FW: Call for grassroots caucus to post in your respective Dgroups

[Rik Panganiban]

Victtorio, et al,

Note that I had asked similar questions a couple of weeks ago when the 
Caucus first was proposed to me.

Rik

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Rik Panganiban <rikp at earthlink.net>
> Date: May 2, 2005 3:54:33 PM EDT
> To: Anuradha <t.n.anuradha at oneworld.net>
> Cc: apc-wsis at lists.apc.org, femmes_feministres at yahoo.fr, 
> muguet at wtis.org, infovil at satyam.net.in, ajbeutler at swissinfo.org, Maud 
> Hand....
> Subject: Re: CALL for Grassroots Caucus
>
> Dear Anuradha,
>
> Thanks for the information about the formation of a "grassroots 
> caucus."
>
> I would encourage those participating in the caucus work to define 
> clearly what they mean when they say "grassroots" organizations, since 
> the word "grassroots" is a somewhat vague concept.  I think of the 
> "grassroots" as implying a certain level of activity, i.e. 
> international, national, regional, local, grassroots, etc. We don't 
> have other caucuses representing groups by their level of activity, 
> but usually by their issue focus (i.e. human rights) or specific 
> community (i.e. persons w disabilities).
>
> And would they be claiming to represent ALL grassroots organizations, 
> or only those with a specific interest in ICTs or the "digital 
> divide"?
>
> All of this could be spelled out in a Mission Statement coming out of 
> the caucus, defining the purpose of the caucus, its procedures, 
> membership, and coordination / leadership.
>
> All the best,
>
> Rik Panganiban
> CONGO

On May 22, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Renata Bloem ha scritto:
>> Dear all,
>> FYI, I forward this to Plenary to make your own connections.
>
> I am not sure whether we already have a procedure for the formation of 
> new caucuses (in fact, I suspect that's part of the work that the 
> Working Methods WG should be doing, though I haven't seen much 
> happening there lately).
>
> However, my first reaction is that I'm not sure whether "Grassroots 
> Caucus" is a good name, nor what kind of issues is the new caucus 
> meant to address, nor who is it expected to involve. I don't 
> understand the distinction between "grassroots organisations" (that, 
> according to the proponents, are not currently represented) and all 
> the other civil society participants (should I assume that they are 
> all "astroturf"?).
>
> I think that the caucus should definitely find a different name. Also, 
> proponents should please remove from the charter any assumption that 
> the rest of civil society is not operating bottom-up or does not 
> represent "real" problems. See for example this quote from the current 
> charter:
>
> "While we appreciate the efforts behind WSIS process, and the 
> important role civil society has assumed in making the WSIS debate a 
> very inclusive one, we are equally concerned about the little or no 
> role played by the representatives of grassroots organisations and the 
> ‘real’ disadvantaged communities at large."
>
> Thanks,
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
===============================================
RIK PANGANIBAN       Communications Coordinator
Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations 
(CONGO)
web: http://www.ngocongo.org
email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org
mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524

* Information on the WSIS at http://www.ngocongo.org/wsis
* Information on Millennium+5 at http://www.ngocongo.org/mdg
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3903 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050523/f83c034e/attachment.bin