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

[Ralf Bendrath]

Laina,

thanks for sharing your view with us. I understand it is sometimes hard to 
find your way and feel included in this whole turmoil when you are new to 
it. I myself needed a bit of time when I joined this process. On the other 
hand, I thinkn you blame too much on the so-called "CS insiders" when what 
is happening is just due to the way this process is set up by the 
governments and the subcommittee chairs. Some short replies on the details 
below.

Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
> 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.
As I understodd it, Jeanette or Adam did not pretend to speak on behalf of 
the IG caucus. Their point was only about the five minutes speaking slots 
at the beginning of the drafting groups. From our experences in the first 
phase (and those of us with golden badges can tell more about this), these 
five minutes are completely useless and have no impact whatsoever.
If we still speak there, we just signal to the governments that we play 
according to any role they give us, even after the WGIG experience (which 
to many was a big learning process in open and deliberative discussions 
beyond the old diplomacy model). In either case, we do not have an impact 
- no matter if we speak or not.

> 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, 
As I fit into this description: I we are too loud, forgive us. And the 
fact that some of us have been active in the WSIS process for mor ethan 
three years is just a fact. I don't think anyone can blame it on us. And 
the "english" issue is also just a matter of fact. My mother tongue is 
German, and I sometimes get really angry when people from Spanish or 
French speaking countries complain about English being used so much in 
civil society. At the same time, they can listen and speak in French and 
Spanish at many CS meetings (thanks to the great work of the 
interpreters), while nobody cares about German. English is just the lingua 
frankca, like it or not. As Ronnie Koven once wrote on this list: If 
Chinese becomes the most relevant trade language in the world in ten or 
twenty years, I will hate it, but I will learn Chinese.

 > and albeit they come from
> VERY GOOD intentions and their hard work is VERY MUCH APPRECIATED! 
Thanks for making this clear.

> 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. 
This is my major point. It is not at our discretion to decide about the 
pace of this PrepCom. We just have to keep up with what happens at the 
government's side. If we don't react timely, our efforts are useless. And 
it will get worse next week, when they will negotiate until 22:00 or even 
24:00. So if anybody expects to be really relevant here by doing a 
nine-to-seven job during the PrepCom, well... things are different. So I 
was surprised by some complaining about the working hours of other CS 
activists, when I think they should thank those who work so hard and don't 
care about a lack of sleep and sunlight.

> 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 think especially Jeanette, Adam and Bertrand have done a great job of 
being as transparent and inclusive as they could under these 
circumstances. They reported to every single plenary and C&T group, they 
sent out numerous mails, they circulated drafts etc. What more do you expect?
I understand your feelings, but what exactly is it you are complaining 
about? Just the fact that some of us have worked together longer than 
others who joined the process later is nobody's fault. And the pace is not 
decvided by us, as I said.

> 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!!
I understand. Some want to speak and make statements, but not submit 
written language proposals? Hmh. That surprises me, but I see your point. 
I think we agree that all of us can make our voices or the ones of our 
constituencies heard much better if we actually know what the current 
state of discussions and negotiations in the drafting groups is. That is 
why we have to think so hard how to use the small "exit" option we have to 
ensure we in the end do not actually have to use it. It's a very subtle 
exercise, and it is very good to have this discussion. On the other hand, 
if people come here and speak to the governments just for the sake of 
expressing their (or their constituencies') views without actually 
reacting to what the state of negotiations is, they will just be looked at 
as unprofessional and not to be taken serious.

> 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 
This is exactly what we need here: Ideas on HOW we could be more creative 
in voicing our protest, making the EU and others on our side (in terms of 
participation) to have a bit more spine etc. Concrete ideas, anybody?

> 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 
Here I disagree. If these people speak on behalf of their countries, they 
should be held accountable. If they don't have a fixed position yet, fine, 
but then they can admit it openly. If they speak bullshit because they 
don't have a clue about how the Internet works (for example), they have 
the best reasons to invite us and listen to our expertise and advice. What 
is at stake here is the transparency and thereby accountablility of 
international diplomacy. As more and more decisions are taken on the 
international level, we need to push this issue and open up the closed 
world of diplomats.

> let's start preparing for a Civil Society Declaration 
I looks like here at least everybody agrees. :-)

[Karklins]
> He did remind us that we 
> were working within the UN Constitution as an organisation between 
> member states.
But nothing in the UN "constitution" (weird word here by the way) prevents 
them from having observers in drafting groups.

> I am very concerned that civil society ourselves, intentionally or 
> not, are NOT practicing multistakeholder and inclusivess processes
Of course we do not practice "multistakeholderism" - we don't have the 
private sector and the governments among us. ;-)

> oursleves. Instead, we are being led by a small group of "insiders" 
Again: Everybody is free to take the lead. We do not work by force, we 
work by arguing and volunteering. And if these alleged "insiders" do not 
do what the rest of civil society wants, nobody is forced to follow them.

> 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. 
I totally agree. But people who have different views must speak at some 
point, regardless of language problems (remember: I am German), otherwise 
nobody will know about this.

> 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.
Jeanette so far has only made clear her personal opinion. _If_ we agree on 
Monday to not drop out of the "talk and walk" option in the drafting 
groups, we will do it for good reasons, I hope. And I am sure Jeanette 
will understand these reasons.

> 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. 
They have preached multistakeholderism as the key feature of the WSIS 
process for more than three years now. We made some progress along the 
way. But if they kick us out now, we have to be a bit more outspoken. At 
some point, actions have to live up with words.

> 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.
The UN had the Cardoso report last year that elaborated at length about 
this. It's all out there. Even Kofi Annan is impatient about the way some 
governments refuse to open up the UN and make it more transparent and 
inclusive. So we need to push them a bit. Just begging and playing nice 
does not work anymore, I am afraid.

My 5 cents. I am curious to hear others' views, as I am a member of the 
drafting group for the statement on Monday. We really need more input here.

Best, Ralf