[WSIS CS-Plenary] Repsonse on procedural issue

[Avri Doria]

Responding to my own email:

I just received a phone call that pointed out that I missed one point  
(at least)

What I say below does not relate to the A or B Committees themselves  
or the Plenary.  We have that right and it has not been challenged.   
To my knowledge there has never been any suggestion either on the  
part of gov'ts that this right should be abrogated in Prepcom3.   
Also, as far as I know, no one in CS has ever suggested that we  
should abandon our right to speak in plenary.

As I hope is obvious, I do not suggest that either.

a.

On 24 sep 2005, at 17.50, Avri Doria 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!
> _______________________________________
>
> There has been a suggestion that CS should cease to make spoken or  
> written contributions to the drafting and working groups should  
> they be defined as 'speak and leave' events.  I disagree with this  
> position.
>
> While I believe that we should make a very strong statement on the  
> procedural issue and that we should continue to fight the  
> governments' decision to exclude non governmental bodies from now  
> until the end of the prepcom, I do not believe that that we should  
> stop speaking at the meetings, even if CS is forced to speak and  
> leave.  To do so, would in my opinion, be tantamount to cutting off  
> our noses to spite our own faces.  We represent many causes and  
> have important postions that needs to be aired and  considered.  To  
> turn our backs on the speaking opportunities would be seen as a  
> relief by many of the governments for it would allow them to  
> discount all of the work, and progress, CS has achieved so far.  I  
> think it would be preferable for caucuses to continue to continue  
> making their points both in person and in writing so that the  
> governments have no excuse for ignoring CS issues. I also think it  
> would be good to agree on a standard single line statement that  
> would be included at the end of every other statement the caucuses  
> made that indicated the CS speaker would be leaving under duress at  
> the end of their speaking time and indicating that the nature of  
> the closed meetings threatened the legitimacy of the entire  
> enterprise.  On finishing their individual statement each speaker  
> could then leave without waiting to be asked to leave, thus making  
> the protest ongoing and visible.
>
>
> I do think we should also be working on documents that are parallel  
> to the governments' documents.  In committee A I would recommend  
> taking the chair's outline and filling in the sections ourselves.  
> So that we would have a document with the same form but which was  
> written according to CS requirements.  I am not tracking B all that  
> carefully, but I expect a similar strategy would also work there.
>
> thanks
> a.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>