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

[conchita poncini]

I tend to agree with this - we do need quiet diplomacy and advocacy - there
are many sympathetic to gender equality, especially if we give them
references to basic documents like the CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination which was the convention used to draft the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and all other ensuing World
Conferences as the legal framework for the concept of  gender equality and
mainstreaming gender equality perspectiives, the MDGs and the Global Summit
2005 Outcome Document.

In solidarity,
Conchita
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jacqueline Morris" <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>
To: "Izumi AIZU" <aizu at anr.org>
Cc: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 12:14 PM
Subject: Re: [governance] [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!
_______________________________________

Hi
Unfortunately I will be late to the meeting, if I make it at all.
I think, given the response today, and private conversations I have
had with some governmental delegates, we run the risk of pushing too
hard and getting a negative result.

I agree that we need to have timely interventions, and if we can
ensure that the written ones are considered in a timely manner, we can
do OK. Maybe we can discuss this with the Chair? If we submit the
written ones and they get put up on the screen - that maybe a good
holding position for today. We can push again tomorrow.

We can also use friendly government voices to raise any points that
are urgent, or need explanation.

Jacqueline


On 9/27/05, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
> I also think while waiting for the decision of our participation in
drafting
> groups, we are already losing the opportunites for almost two days.
>
> Just sitting inside the drafting group room quietly is better than kicking
> out, but for that we cannot make any substantive comments but just
> being there watching governments going ahead for the negotiation.
>
> I think we should put equal amount of energy for making subtantive
> comments, especially as they approach to the core issues of oversight
> and forum we should really make our own position clear to them
> in time, not after.
>
> Let us first discuss about that this afternoon at the IG caucus
> meeting in Geneva, and welcome all online comments for that.
>
> Thanks,
>
> izumi
>
> At 17:52 05/09/27 +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> >[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
>


--
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary