[WSIS CS-Plenary] Should we make this statement today ?

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

  _____  

From: Laina Raveendran Greene [mailto:laina at getit-multimedia.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 7:39 AM
To: 'plenary at wsis-cs.org'
Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; 'Adam Peake'
Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Should we make this statement today ?


I agree with Betrand's statement about seeing what happens and somehow not
quite forcing them to make a decision, as this could backlash. Meanwhile,the
draft statement only acknowledges the efforts of the Chair. I think we
should also thank countries that have supported us, and also efforts of the
Chair of the committees. I know that they have tried in their own ways to be
open within the circumstances. Do you know that SubCom B chair has been
sitting down and "drafting" with civil society players and she also has made
allowances within her own delegation to help e.g. arrange for the disabled
to have their own transportation in a disabled friendly van, etc. I think
they areopen, and it does not help putting them in the same camp as the
hardline governments.
 
Laina

  _____  

From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 6:02 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Should we make this statement today ?


Dear Avri, dear all,
 
Thanks for the finalized statement. It was prepared for a situation of CS
being kicked out of the room after a few minutes. But this is not the
present situation and we must make sure the tonality of the statement is in
line with what both chairs are trying to do - and did - yesterday. 
 
Let's remember that what we were ready to accept was just remaining silent
observers in the drafting groups. Vittorio's report from the sub-committee A
clearly shows a situation that goes beyond that and is certainly not one of
full exclusion. 
 
Governements know that they are in a double bind if they make a formal
decision :
- either they kick us out and  demonstrate everything we say in our draft
(and they perfectly know what it contains)
- or they formally include us and they set a clear precedent
 
So they have opted for a medium, informal way : setting a rough precedent
without saying so explicitely. 
 
We have to be very careful here and keep an eye on the ball. I agree that
the whole mechanisms is utterly frustrating. But the real goal is to make
sure that whatever is put in place in Tunis for the years to come is  in a
format we accept. 
 
We must consider thoroughly the benefits and risks of making the statement
in its present form at this very moment. The key question is : what more do
we want to obtain at that stage ? 
 
Can we discuss this in Plenary this morning ?
 
Best
 
Bertrand

 
On 9/27/05, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote: 

Hi,

A final update of the statement addressing a few last minute comments.
The statement will be made by Adam Peake. 

a.










-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050927/8d8e7e17/attachment.html