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

[conchita poncini]

It seems contrary to WGIG process, I find that the Chair of SubCom-B gives
CS leeway to interact with governmentsn in drafting language.  She actually
asked CS to provide the wording for 11 on the Child when the U.S. said it
was not appropriate in the Chapeau and she replied saying that children are
our future and we must at least put something to recognize the child in ICT.
Wording was provided by the Children's Caucus but also by myself on behalf
of the Girlchild WG in Geneva, giving language from the Global Summit
Outcome Doc. of MDG Sept.14-16. to include "in the interest of the child,
especially of the girlchild (our reason here is that it is always the
girlchild that bears the brunt of discrimination and is unprotected nor has
access to ICTs as compared to boys).  I hope this will be taken into account
by the Caucus as well in operative paras.

Conchita .


--- Original Message ----- 
From: "Izumi AIZU" <aizu at anr.org>
To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>; <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:07 AM
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!
> _______________________________________
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>