[WSIS CS-Plenary] Repsonse on procedural issue

[Robert Guerra]

Avri: 

as for participation:
cs can still speak and observe in the govt plenary and sub/comitttees, but 
what has been questioned, at least now in PC3 is the ability of CS to 
observe the meetings of the drafting committees. 

as for the cs decision: 

for me it is unclear what the position is of cs. to shut up all together, to 
abandon one subcomittee, both or none at all. 

i am of the personal view that we should stayed engaged given what ever 
limited means we have. for if we don't a text will be written without our 
contributions - and it will be passed. 

thought it is unacceptable that cs can not staz in the room, there are still 
ways to find out what happens. as well, there are additional actions one or 
more states can do to in fact get cs in the room. they should be challeneged 
to do more and not just accept the status quo. 

if we want to abandon following the drafting comittees, then fine - then the 
decision would have to be done as to what to do with the text that gets 
generated. do we try to feed that to govts, or just post it on a website 
somewhere after the fact....? 

regards 

Robert 

Avri Doria writes: 


> 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 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary