[WSIS CS-Plenary] Proposed Guidelines for CS Plenary

[Vittorio Bertola]

On Mar, 27 Settembre 2005 10:48, west disse:
> Dear Vitorio
>
> Thanks for your comments, I should request you to attend the WGWM meeting
> at
> noon in NGO lounge close to cafeteria, and to discuss your points with the
> drafting group, as tomorrow we are aiming to finalize this document and
> avoid reopening of the discussion as there is not much time  and there are
> other important issues such as statements and CS position on govts work. I
> should also request all other people to come up with text or language for
> the drafting group,assisting them to finalize the document and to be able
> to
> share the final version for adoption by tonight.
>
> I sincerely request your cooperation and understanding on this issue.
> Best wishes

I just came out of the previous meeting and found your email, will drop
into your meeting asap.

Speaking about my main concern - the definition of "civil society
membership" - I am not sure about what to suggest. I understand the
practical reasoning behind the idea of only allowing accredited
organizations to be full participants in civil society, and denying
individuals and non-accredited organizations the right to vote in the
plenary. At the same time, I find it incredibly hard to accept.

For example, if this charter is adopted, a big part (perhaps even the
majority) of the Internet Governance Caucus - especially those who can't
afford to come to Geneva, and thus didn't bother to find an organizational
accreditation - will be deprived of their voting rights in the Civil
Society Plenary. Others (as I did for past PrepComs) have found friendly
organizations that have accepted to accredit them, but that won't let them
have a vote in the reformed Plenary.

Paradoxically, after the adoption of this Charter, as an Internet activist
that managed to get credibility with the governmental delegation, I will
have more influence on what my government says, than on what civil society
decides. To me, this looks like a defeat. We could have tried to embrace
something more innovative and forward-looking, rather than creating a sort
of mockery of the governmental procedures, creating a second league of
"onlookers" that will only be allowed to sit in the back rows of the
Plenary, and (I hope) to speak, but not to vote. I would rather have
conceived the Plenary as a free assembly of women and men, each equal to
each other, and discussed separately how to certify the identity of each
participant, and avoid capture.

In any case, I also believe that drafting this fundamental document on a
Friday, putting it to the Plenary on Tuesday, and approving it on
Wednesday, is a bit too fast. I understand the desire to be productive,
but I think we need more careful thoughts on this very basic matter.
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...