[WSIS CS-Plenary] process, political, policy and interest outcomes in WSIS

[Tracey Naughton]

Hello All, this is TracEy

None of what I have to contribute diminishes the work and  
contribution of anyone active in WSIS CS.

Any group as large as WSIS CS will contain a variety of players. In  
our case these range from multi-national NGOs and networks, to small  
and medium NGOs constituted and funded in numerous ways, to interest  
groups and individuals of many foci, to ICT development practitioners  
to grassroots people, to name only the most obvious.

There will also be diversity of desired outcomes. This can range from  
clear broad or specific policy outcomes to interest based inclusion  
in the output of civil society work, to being host of a global  
summit. This is coupled with a further layer of skill levels  - and  
the skills range too, and can include technical and social orientations.

Of course, as has been pointed out, there is also a range of  
knowledge of the way WSIS is unfolding, is operating, has operated  
and differing levels of time and distance experience in WSIS. This is  
a 3D policy process. Then there is the reality and circumstances that  
we live in. Some live with affordable broad band and spend a great  
deal of time on the Internet and understand its functions and  
possibilities, some access email at cyber cafes at distance from  
their homes and considerable proportional expense. Some have laptops,  
some don't. CS reflects the divides that we are navigating.

At a principled level, as the veterans will know, we have  
consistently called for 'human centred' information societies. I  
believe that if a principle is called for, it should also be practised.

We have to weave a balance between policy and action outcomes and the  
differing aspirations for the WSIS work. Everyone has a right to be  
here - whether they own a laptop or have an email address, or not.

In my opinion, the gap between veterans and participants who arrive  
at later stages, and large networks and coalitions and smaller  
organisations, has been widening for some time. The attention to  
inclusivity is diminishing. From where I sat chairing this last week  
in the evening meetings I have been disappointed at the level of  
mockery that is increasingly and openly being displayed by some of my  
respected veteran colleagues. It should also be confirmed that the  
speaking lists recorded in my notebook sees the same seven names  
rotating night after night. Is this right or wrong? Its not about  
that - we all have to live with our own practise, but it is always  
worth reflecting on it and considering things from other perspectives.

Let's try to find a human centred process that foregrounds co- 
operation and prioritises content development that reflects the  
variety of desired outcomes.

On possible solutions:

I believed the initial focal points appointed last Monday were  
mandated by 'the model' that was adopted, to form a team of four to  
five facilitators within their tracks. Too much has been taken on by  
too few who are now being seen to be promoting personal perspectives,  
not track or caucus ones. Roles and responsibilities need to be  
shared. Greater trust needs to be placed in the skills of actors who  
are  reporting a feeling of being marginalised and in some cases  
alienated.

I support Avri's suggestion of taking the structure of the  
governments documents and filling them in ourselves. There isn't any  
reason why we cannot list a variety of interest viewpoints either,  
and attribute them to the originating CS group.  This calls for  
drafting to be done by skilled wordsmiths who can include different  
opinions as well as amalgamate them when that is possible. It will be  
easier for governments to follow if we use their document structure. ;-)

At this stage we have not left the process for a journey in an  
alternate outcome document, but even if we do we may need to reflect  
diverse interests. If we work to the governments document structure  
it can be presented to the Chairs and to delegations as source  
material. If it becomes an alternate WSIS document it would be useful  
to illustrate the difference between CS and governments outputs, to  
have used the same structure.

Within our tracks A & B I believe we need a group of wordsmiths who  
spend their whole time crafting text that can be followed  
structurally by governments, yet records our diverse views - be they  
interests or specific policy and action objectives. We would have to  
play catch up but if we sell our document in the right way it can  
still have impact and exist in its own right.

In addition to the wordsmiths who need to stay in one place all day  
and write, we need others in each track to monitor (when we are in  
the room) and report throughout the day, and others still to analyse,  
to receive texts in whatever form CS groups generate them and to work  
with the authors to place them in the structure of the document and  
even to hold track meetings where input and context can be discussed  
and formulated.

If we decided on such a process, then our orientation to and advocacy  
for a 'talk and walk', 'walk and talk', walk, talk and balk or  
whatever model, would become very clear and could be presented to the  
WSIS Chair with a clear and comprehensive strategy behind the position.

Even if our position in this regard is not accepted lets not forget  
that we are here to develop content in or out of a shared outcome  
document and at the same time, we are writing multi-stakeholder  
process for future UN negotiations and global governance.

warm regards

TracEy