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

Tue Sep 27 11:46:02 BST 2005

Amazing developments! After reading a draft statement from CS to protest
on blocking our access, I went straight to one of the Brazilian reps to
check if the BR delegation was supporting this idea -- he seemed
surprised, indicating no one will be and is not blocking anything as far
as his delegation knows. Bertrand's and Wolf's messages seem to confirm
this, or even better!

--c.a.

-----Original Message-----
From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, governance at lists.cpsr.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:21:50 +0200
Subject: RE: [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!
> _______________________________________
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary