[WSIS CS-Plenary] RE: [governance] Speaking up and some additions

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

I like the way Avri has redone the statement, although I would have also
acknowledged efforts of the Chair Of PrepCom 3 and SubCom 3 as well in that
note. "We do appreciate the efforts of many countries, the Chair of the
PrepCom 3 and the Chairs of the SubCommittees to keep us included." 

I agree with Ian that we should not threaten but find someway to keep the
goodwill of the others who have been supporting us and focus the
disatisfactionwith the others. . Perhaps words instead of "protest" could be
used, as protest could imply we walk out if we are not in. Perhaps
"denounce" or "unacceptable" or something stronger, which means register
dissent without meaning some action follows that statement.

I do also agree with Jeanette, Vittorio and Avri though, if done right and
right time, we can make an impact to get them see the irony of their own
statements about multistakeholder and transparency and we should DO IT NOW. 

I would however like to add something constructive at the end that here is a
historic opportunity for them to walk the talk and work the way the world
really is today. 

"There is a great opportunity for PrepCom 3 to put move forward with all the
progress we have made within the UN and WSIS. The UN Secretary General has
been at the forefront of gathering support for this change to ensure a
multistakeholder involvement in the UN. To exclude us now would amount to
taking a step backwards. When looking at issues regarding the Information
Society, we should ensure we work in partnership between all stakeholders to
ensure the betterment of the future of the Internet community now and the
generations to come."

My 2 cents worth from Singapore.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:19 AM
To: 'Vittorio Bertola'; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Speaking up

Vittorio, 

I think Avri's statement was good and should be read and tabled if people
think that is appropriate.

I would not add a threat to the written statement. Threatening undermines
goodwill. However it would be worth mentioning to the few countries who
continue to call for ejection of CS members that CS feels uneasy about
co-operating with parties in Internet governance matters who seem determined
to oppose the presence of CS voices.

But I would caution that the game here is Internet governance, not process,
and the more WSIS bogs down in procedural matters (a la day one) the less
likely it is to achieve anything. I'm not sure how you make a strong
statement without causing a procedural debate but if it's possible to do
that it would be better.

Ian Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- 
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 6:46 PM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Speaking up
> 
> I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest 
> statement against the exclusion of civil society and private sector 
> from drafting groups.
> 
> I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some 
> governments, with the business people, and with some of us. The 
> business people are meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, 
> but it seems likely they will, especially if we do the same. Some 
> governments (both EU, and non-EU from the developed world) have told 
> us that they would support us, but that they need to get a strong, 
> formal and public protest from non-governmental actors first. The EU 
> is meeting at the topmost level today at 3pm (the only high level 
> group meeting in the week) and so would need that statement before then.
> 
> If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. Yesterday 
> civil society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more 
> drafting groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that 
> the next round of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would 
> adopt the same rules of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the 
> sense that CS and PS speak in the first five minutes and then leave.
> 
> We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We need 
> to get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in 
> public, so that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we 
> have to confront them with the risk (which, I think, would actually 
> become reality) of the Internet community refusing to participate in 
> any new mechanism due to this kind of treatment, and contesting the 
> Summit through the press, which would possibly turn the entire Tunis 
> Summit into a failure for what regards IG.
> 
> These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this 
> point of view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any 
> case, if we can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage 
> of time, I would do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we
can get.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 
> 23/09/2005
> 

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
 


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