[WSIS CS-Plenary] Summit speakers

[conchita poncini]

Dear Tracey,

It is indeed apparent that no one is satisfied with the decisions taken on
the choice of speakers since many caucuses were left and a few had more than
one.  As Chair of the Contents and Themes, I propose you review this
process.  See my other comments.

Conchita

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tracey Naughton" <tracey at traceynaughton.com>
To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 5:07 PM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Summit speakers


> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of
this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> Hello all
>
> My two Rands worth.
>
> The CS speaker nominations were called for by the end of PrepCom 3.
> Robert is right that we should have begun a long time back but no
> one, including Robert in his role as a CSB member,  chose to take the
> lead on this prior to the PrepCom either before or after the
> information was posted by CONGO. This isn't surprising as there are
> few CS members, if any, able to make WSIS their life and time between
> meetings is consumed by 'rest of life' activity. WSIS activity is
> left to the designated meeting times.
>
> The ITU are aware that the phase one selection process involved a lot
> of work on the part of civil society and that there was widespread
> disenchantment with the results which did not reflect that work.
>
> The ITU seemed during PrepCom 3  to be genuinely approaching speaker
> nomination from civil society with goodwill. This was confirmed by
> the liaison work done by Toru Nakaya of the ITU.
>
> However, the ITU is the lead agency for the Summit and the Summit
> isn't far away. They had set a deadline and have made clear that they
> reserve final decision making on speakers. They have a broader set of
> considerations - ones that match Michael Gurstein's views '..... then
> the identification shoud be done with one eye on credibility/
> visibility to this larger universe....' The selection will not wait
> much longer and that's just a logistical and realistic fact. Content
> and Themes did not offer any criteria when the subject was discussed.
>
> The ITU is developing a speakers list of its own. Civil Society's
> nominations will be considered in a compiled list from all sources.
> We were never in a position to negotiate who, when, how much time,
> though general guidelines were provided to us to assist our
> nomination process. These were posted to the plenary list.
>
> Here are some early prospects from the ITU list:
>
> Mr. Oliver Segond, Secretary General, Digital Solidarity Fund
> Dr Robert Khan, Founder Corporation for National Research Institute
> Mr Swaminathan, President MS Swaminathan Foundation
> Mr Jimmy Wales, President WikiMedia Foundation
> Prof. Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Technology Centre
> Mr Tim Berners Lee, Director World Wide Web Consortium
>
> Aside from the fact that the above list is not gender balanced (which
> is directly connected to the 'highest level of the organisation'
> criteria) Toru Nakaya did assure us on several occasions that in its
> final list the ITU will be sensitive to region, gender, age, language
> and state of national development. That of course does not mean the
> final list will reflect all these considerations because the
> paramount criteria will be putting out key messages to the citizens
> of the world on the Information Society and all its components
> including but not limited to principles, Internet Governance and the
> digital divide.
>
> I think that the process has not been perfect but has been reasonable
> given the time constraints and process decided upon by the content
> and themes meeting - which was to set up a committee and not to work
> through the nominations as a whole group (albeit without the off site
> people who could have been consulted). The latter was a process
> proposal developed by Bertrand. It would have taken time and been
> laborious but would have distributed the decision more widely.
>
> Realistically, I think we should acknowledge the shift in approach
> made since phase 1 by the ITU  and understand the current limitations
> of our sphere of influence here.
>
> Having said that I would be quite happy to see people drive a new
> selection process, though not confident it could unfold before the
> decision is made by the ITU.
>
> Tracey Naughton
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>