[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Repsonse on procedural issue

[conchita poncini]

These comments seem judicious and this is what I in fact commented on during
the discussions.

Conchita

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Izumi AIZU" <aizu at anr.org>
To: "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>; "Governance" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>;
"WSIS Plenary" <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:44 AM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Repsonse on procedural issue


> [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!
> _______________________________________
>
> Good morning everyone in Geneva, I just came in last night and
> trying to catch up.
>
> I tend to agree with Avri that it is still to early and risky to
> withdraw from making any statements to SubComA slots, though
> I do note that we are put in a critical juncture and some very
> strong voices should be made to those governments who are
> trying to exclude the civil society and private sector from
> making the final report to Tunis.
>
> I also think we should prepare plan B, in addition to preparing
> alternative text, we should perhaps suggest to have alternative
> or informal meetings with governments and others in case
> they decide not to include us in drafting sessions. Just an idea
> yet. More later,
>
> izumi
>
>
> At 17:50 05/09/24 +0200, Avri Doria wrote:
> >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.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>