R: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups going into closed sessions

Sat Sep 24 10:49:03 BST 2005

PLs, I ask you to remove my name from the mailing list

pzocchi at unarete.org

  _____  

Da: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] Per conto
di Laina Raveendran Greene
Inviato: sabato 24 settembre 2005 11.21
A: 'Rik Panganiban'; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Oggetto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups going
into closed sessions

Thanks Rik for taking the time to respond to me. I am aware of what is
happening at this juncture, although I am new to the PrepCom and Summit
process. I have taken time to attend the orientation, and every single
plenary in themornings and in the afternoons, including attending IG caucus
and some of SubCom B meetings and speak to the government delegates to get
their inputs of the process as well (I have in my past life, also worked in
the diplomatic world and ICT world,  both with governments, private sector
and NGOs over 20 years, I actually do know many of the delegates in the room
(Singapore, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Brunei, US, Canada, etc,  some I
have even known for more than 15 years and some of whom I have conducted
training sessions for in their countries on the very issues on the table of
PrepCom3).  I have also truly found the orientation kit and all these
meetings very useful to understand how we can best add value to the process.
I like the comment you made about the girl who cried and the delegate who
emphathised and said but I need text.

Yes, I understand that we stand now at a deadlock point where if we take
Jeanette and Adam's sugestion of not making any more statements if we are
not included in the drafting group (by the way this is not an  IG caucus
position- since IG caucus did not have consultations on this nor reach any
decision on accepting their position) that this will affect the rest of CS
work next week. 

I did see many hands (in the minority) that were not put up on Fri evening
when Tracy took a poll of those who agreed with Jeanette, and these hands
that did not go up were from smaller places with smaller voices but equally
important voices. We in Civil Society say we want to be inclusive and let
the voices of the smallest be heared, but for now we are being overtaken in
the process by well intentioned but eloquent andloud developed country
persons who speak English very well and think they know the process better
than any of us, and albeit they come from VERY GOOD intentions and their
hard work is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED! BUT they need to realise their working
methods are excluding others intentionally or not (it can be quite
intimidating to give input at the pace they run. Many caucuses who are
dealing with organising their own selves find it hard to keep up with thier
own caucus work and the two subcom pace of work).

They are also not considering that some smaller NGOs may have come to make
some impact in the process, albeit not the way SubCOm A or B Chairs feel are
useful or effective i.e. they may have statements but no definite drafting
texts yet. But the way the process is going, we cannot underestimate that
anything can make an impact. Look at how Kiki is doing a great job getting
"universal design" which she managed to put in the documents through the
World Association of the Blind through formal documents submission and
through her participation in SubCom A and B. There are others like her,
however, who have not fully understood the proces and have not been as
effective getting their voices heared. This is even more so especially given
the current methods and pace of work of the Coordinator of SubCom A and B.
Some feel intimidated just within the Civil Society process. For people who
have travelled from half way across the world e.g. the indigenous groups,
the disabled group, the non-English speaking groups and many others from
places far away from Geneva they are feeling very lost by the pace and the
"insider" working methods of CS. 

I have mixed feeling about whether we should take a simple view of let's
protest to make a point and then not make any more statement and not even
take our 5 minute slot. Have we thought out all the ramifications of this
and have we thought out the hardship this could cause on those who have come
to just make the voices of their constituents heared, even though they may
realistically know their voices may not be draftd into language of text.
They are ALREADY feeeling very left out!!

There were many in that room that day that did not put up their hands as
they had mixed feelings about it. Some do feel that there are other creative
ways to work within the UN system to give inputs and yes- protest that they
are not practicing what they preach (i.e if you want transparency and
multistakeholder) than do it all the way. 

Keep in mind also that the group of government negotiators at PrepCom 3 is
not the group who will make these changes happen NOW. We do have champions
in the room but we also have diplomats in this room be uncomfortable to make
this happen overnight without understanding the repurcussions. Don;t forget
they all felt the impact of loosing time on Monday from Subcom A by our CS
issue on accreditation. Some delegates may feel for good reasons or vested
reasons but may be anxious to open a pandora's box when they understand the
sensitivy of the issue of the government to government issues as well.

In any case, there is also a rational for closed doors for some governments,
as they do need the ability to discuss openly within closed doors and not be
quoted. They will be afraid to brainstorm amongst peers, if all their
meetings are open and they may get quoted as a country position, which they
may have no authority to bind their country to their positions (many of
which don;t even have a clear position from their home offices, and are hear
to learn and then make decisions- these are mainly the smaller delegations
from develping areas). So we may be hampering the process of reaching
consences if we insist to be everywhere. Instead, we should ask how we can
be most effective within these considerations. Ask for making statements
relevant- by being given actual text. Ask how we can insist on text being in
bracketts if we do not agree. and let's start preparing for a Civil Society
Declaration that we may want to present on our own in the event this all
does not work out at all!! Let's work on many fronts- not just say we "walk
out" and not even take the slots allocated to us as we may make a mockery of
"multisyakeholder"

As I said, I have worked in this this diplomatic world and ICT world,  both
with governments, private sector and NGOs over 20 years, I actually do know
many of the delegates in the room. I also attended the session you had
organised with President of PrepCom, and by the way Rik,k you did an amazing
review of the past and present participation within the UN system as a whole
versus WSIS. Being an someone with a law degree and studied International
Law at the International Court of Justice and here in Geneva at the Graduate
Institute of Internatioanl studies and worked on drafting issues within UN
system, I also understood Pres of PrepCom points on working within the
limitations of the UN system and not being able to make drastic changes
right away. As he said, we are working in a world where private and public
international law is coming together, and this UN world is working hard to
include new stakeholders, by developing new types of working structures and
developing soft law approaches (MOU type rather than treaty or GA
resolutions). He did remind us that we were working within the UN
Constitution as an organisation between member states. 

So whilst I agree with the passion of the SubCom A and B coordinators of
making a point and that we have a unique opportunity here to call for
attention to this cause that more can indeed be done, I also do not think
that we should be careful to speak for all Civil Society as others may have
other views on this.

So yes, Rik I do understand what has been going on and I also understand
that the suggestions by the subCom A and B chairs that could impact the rest
of our work. I am also VERY concerned about the hardship that it may cause
to people who may have come from far and wide with much difficulty and who
are the very voices that we civil society claim "we represnt". 

I am very concerned that civil society ourselves, intentionally or not, are
NOT practicing multistakeholder and inclusivess processes oursleves.
Instead, we are being led by a small group of "insiders" who are all mainly
from developed countries and who seem to they are the only ones who
understand the issues and the process of the negotiations with the
governments. 

Let's do all work with a spirit of cooperation and unity, and have some
compassion for those who are too intimidated to speak up or for language
reasons and who may not have the same agenda as the vocal ones. We all hold
a responsibility not just to the Internet generation of today, but of the
generations to come!!! This may be our last chance for a while before we get
another opportunity to interact with governments on this ICT issues on a
multilateral basis. Smaller voices with equally legitimate issues, have the
opportunity now to interact and voice up to a larger audience, so please do
consider their rights too before we make any radical decision. 

Summary-

Yes, indeed DO protest this hypocracy but don;t take drastic actions before
understanding its long term impact or realising that may not be unanimous or
which could unintentionally end up being "uninclusive" and
"multistakeholder" ourselves. This new process of working through SubCom A
and B, has led to SubCom A and B chairs viewing thier views, which are not
necessarily reflected of their own caucus group let alone other caucuses. 

I do think that if Jeanette has strong views on this, she should step down
as coordinator and have someone not emotive about the issue to coordinate
views of others before ANY decisions or recommendations of the caucus are
made.

I also think that rather we should also consider the wise words of Tracy who
had warned us from the very beginning on Sunday and Monday, that this would
happen as it did in Geneva Summit prepcoms,  and start drafting out our own
inputs which could become a Civil Society Declaration, if we feel this will
get our views out there at the least.

I also think we could ask governments to endorse the principles of
multistakeholder and transparency etc rather than simply pushing them to do
it RIGHT NOW. Remember, this is the WGIG and now a Chair's paper and it has
not yet reached a concensus to become a concensus doc YET. We should
recognising finding a solution to ensure "multistakeholder" and
"inclusiveness" model cannot all be done within next week (the UN and many
other agencies have been trying without much success or acceptance from CS).
Should we be asking them to set up another WGIG type smaller group which we
should be a part of again, with a clear mandate and deadline to create a
"new form of cooperation" as the Chair put it. We all know this will not
happen overnight but at least we know there are champions of this now. Ask
also that this group with clear mandate and deadline, report back to some
body of authority to make this happen. Let's discuss and explore to see how
best to make these things happen. Governments feel that WGIG did not exactly
have answers that gov could adopt and say this is better than the present. I
spoke to one of the delegates who said we should either have very clear
ideas on a solution that is better than status quo or we call for a mandate
and deadline to work out a system to ensure "multistakeholder" and
"inclusiveness" finally becomes a reality within the WSIS and UN system.

Rik- I have truly appreciated your, Tracy and Renate's efforts to keep CS as
informed as possible, but these new structure is causing new problems and we
need to do consider things with a longer term perspective. I would like to
suggest TRacy as chair on Monday clarify some of this to everyone, and see
how we can fix what seems to be broke now in a manner than bring more
lasting results for all, not just the few insiders. To put it in the words
of another delegate Concita- we are really being quite "elitist" in our
approach within civil society and we need to change this.

Regards,

Laina

  _____  

From: Rik Panganiban [mailto:rikp at earthlink.net] 
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:52 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: Laina Raveendran Greene
Subject: Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups going into closed
sessions

Hi Laina,

As you are new to the process, I will try and clarify. 

Our work in both sub-committees of the governmental negotiations now risks
to be severely diminished by governments moving into closed drafting
sessions, from which we are excluded. Across the board, caucuses and
activists I have talked to engaged in the process have expressed shock at
this severe degradation in our rights to participate in the process, a
practice that was established in Phase I.

Now that governments are at the "hard stuff" in the negotiations on internet
governance, many of us feel this is not the time to kick civil society out
of the room. Indeed, they perhaps need us most now more than ever to break
deadlocks and propose solutions.

The governments have chosen to upset all of our caucuses methods of work by
their decision. So the IG caucus has chosen, I believe rightly, to focus on
challenging this procedural decision which affects all of our work across
the board.

As Tracy Naughton, current chair of Content and Themes, explained, next week
earliest we need to decide in Content and Themes whether we need to continue
to input texts and speeches to a process that is becoming increasingly
closed to us. We may or may not decided to do so. But right now we need to
focus on keeping open the doors that are being slammed in our faces.

This of course does not precluded caucuses from continuing their own lobby
and advocacy, which they are of course free always to do. But when all of
our rights of participation are at risk, we must drop everything and try and
get this decision reversed.

More on the request for speakers question later...

Respectfully,

Rik Panganiban

CONGO

On Sep 24, 2005, at 3:34 AM, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

Dear Rik,

Thank you for letting usknow about this. Some of us are experiencing a
situation where this new method of working within sub Comm A as the Internet
Caucus group, leading to a an "Insiders" (former WGIG members) and new
comerswhich they seem reluctant to invite into the circle. Not sure about
the same for SubCom B as I have given up on trying to be part of it given
the hours they work and style of working (I am sure no intentional part on
Betrand).

I have a little concern here because as we run up the end of these
discussions, some of us where also not aware of this request for speakers.
If we stick to the SubCom A and B process of being the only caucuses
inputting into the debates, then many other caucuses will get left behind.
Can you kindly suggest how we can submit names from our caucuses directly.
Would CSB or the working methods group do this? A little clarification on
how working methods will receive the names and how speakers will be
suggested would definitely help add a new level of openess that seems to be
closed now given that both SubComm are so focused only on negotiating clear
text that they feel are relevant rather than on how other caucus feel may be
relevant. 

If you need more clarifications on what I mean, I have discussd this with
TRacy and would appreciate some advise.

Thanks,

Laina

  _____  

From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Rik Panganiban
Sent: Saturday, September 24, 2005 9:23 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: workingmethods at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] speaking slots for summit

Actually, we have been discussing this subject at the Working Methods
Working Group for some time now, and plan to spend a good part of next week
on this. We plan to have a recommendation on how to manage the selection
process for the numerous slots to present to plenary and the bureau asap. 

Rik Panganiban

CONGO

On Sep 24, 2005, at 2:36 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:

[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!

_______________________________________

again, i remind the plenary (as well as the bureau) of an item that I have
mentioned - ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS - for the PAST MONTHS - that by EARLY OCT
CS needs to develop and submit a list of specific names for high level
panels and rountables that will take place at the summit.

This issue of speakers was mentioned at the governmental bureau on friday.
Specifically, the ITU SG (Itsumi) mentioned that the ITU at the moment is
seeking recommendations from all stakeholders as well as governments on who
could participate and speak at the events.

CS was asked to identify speakers for a few months now. However, little to
no action has been taken by CS in this regards. CS should take up the offer
to suggest speakers. if not, we run the risk that the iTU and WSIS ES will
identify speakers for us.

let's move on this issue.

--

Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>

Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)

WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe

Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374

_______________________________________________

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

===============================================

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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050924/6ba33f6d/attachment.htm