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

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

I agree and I still think Avri's draft is excellent given the so many views
everyone has. Two things:

1) wait for a time this is appropriate to mention (i.e. timing is
everything)
2) we do need to acknowledge that the Chairs of PrepCom and SubCom, and some
countries have been VERY supportive and we appreciate this. This inclusion
suggested by Deevina (sorry for the misspell), supported by me and one
another member of the audience, somehow did notget into Avri's text. 
Perhaps Avri, if you added this in, it would be truly in context.

Your efforts are most appreciated, and yes we should let them know there is
a historic opportunity to put into practice a multistakeholder consultation.
In other ways, say we think this is not acceptable but also be positive and
say this is an opportunity for them to truly make a difference. 

This would be more constructive, than sounding like we don't even appreciate
what they have done within the circumstances.

Best,
Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
Kleinwächter
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:22 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Comments at plenary - Sept 27 AM

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


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance