[WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear all,
 
just now, in the ifnormal IG Negotiation Group on Para. 52 ff. a remarkable event happend:
 
1. the chair treated all the languge from CS and PI euqally in the negotiation.
2. Other governments refered to the language proposed by the Human Rights Caucus# in the same way they refered to language proposed by governments and nobody objected.
3. when it cam to para 54 on authetifiaction, Ralph took the floor and a. said that he knows that he has no negotiation right but he wants to explain the Cuacus position and he did without being stopped by the chair.
4. when he ended, the chair asked Ralph some questions and asked also whether #he can agree# with the new labgiage. and Ralph said yes.
5. After an other intevention by Israel the CCBI rep took the floor and said that CCBI supports the position of the previous speaker and also explained the CCBI language proposal for the para. And also CCBI was not stopped. De fact, both itnerventiopn (Ralph and Heather( were treated equally to the governmental interveenttion.
6. After a short  break, China, Saudi Arabia, Israel challenged this procedure refering to the #agreed rules of procedure#. UK/EU, US, Norway supported the involvement of observers in the very constructive dialogue. \7. The chair from Norway said th at there has been no agreement on the concrete procedure for informal groups so far and he has no instruction. He would need further consultations with the chair of the Subcommittee, thenpl;enary and the executive secretariat. The remaining time was 90 minutes so he prposed to continue as before but to give the observers onlt a right to answer questions from governmdnts and not to intervene on their own behalf. This got the consensus by all parties in the room.
 
My impression is that this is a remarkable development and proofes that we should not push to aggressive for a #clear and final statement# about the rules but shouyld accept a playing field with gliding barriers on a case by case basis.
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 
 

________________________________

From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Adam Peake
Sent: Tue 9/27/2005 10:52 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM



[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!
_______________________________________

I read some text this morning.  As the CS plenary decided that we
should not present the draft discussed in content and themes and
various CS lists, we dropped that text for now.  What I think I said
(pretty on the fly) was:

Good morning Mr. Chair

Thank you for your personal efforts to ensure transparency and
inclusion, your efforts since the publication of the WGIG report are
much appreciated.

However, Civil Society is disappointed that we will not be able to
participate fully in the drafting groups.  And that the rules and
procedures for this prepcom now seem unclear to all.

Could you explain the situation regarding drafting groups?

We note your new compilation document of comments received, and are
pleased to see that some civil society comments have been included.
But also note some have not been included.  For example last Friday
we made comments about 43c.  These comments were also mentioned by a
government in sub committee yesterday.  But they are not mentioned in
your new document, nor were they mentioned during the drafting group
meeting that discussed 43 yesterday.  Did we have rights to speak in
that drafting group?  Could we have reminded the group that we had
already submitted comments and those comments were already on the
prepcom3 website.

I think you can understand our confusion.  Can we join and speak in
drafting groups?  Are our comments made to sub-committee A being
taken into consideration?

We would appreciate clarity on this. We were expecting some
resolution yesterday.

Thank you.

END.

Izumi has sent some notes with the chair's response you should
already have seen.

I think bad precedence is being set.  Above was read in my name and
that of GLOCOM and on behalf of the IG caucus so is my
responsibility, I thought something had to be said.

Thanks,

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