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

Tue Sep 27 11:52:11 BST 2005

Too good to be true... it seems Brazil is insisting on the position of
keeping drafting groups closed, contrary to the impression I got
yesterday from talking to one in the delegation... :(

--c.a.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar
22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil
tel +55-21-2527-5494
fax +55-21-2527-5460
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-----Original Message-----
From: "carlos a. afonso" <ca at rits.org.br>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, "Wolfgang Kleinwächter"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 07:46:02 -0300
Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary -  Sept 27 AM

> 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