[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] CS Speaker nominations - A personal short analysis
and proposal
Bill McIver
mciver at albany.edu
Sun Nov 9 16:18:39 GMT 2003
Meryem,
Thank you for your analysis.
I offer a few responses from my perspective.
* The Plenary, CT, et al began discussions prior to the Secretariat's
formal
invitation. If you recall this was on the heels of Nobel Peace prize
announcement.
We all simply did not follow through in coming to a resolution to
your apt questions.
* It has been my understanding that CT was asked via the CSB to take
this responsibility.
* In our "democratic" tradition, I sent *drafts* of the proposed process
to the
CT list for comment, but received few
(Not to mention that the *drafts* were inadvertently sent to the
broader lists before
feedback could have been possible.)
* Your hypotheses about why CT would want to do this the way that "we"
are doing it now
suggests that we individually have time to sit around and
strategize. From my perspective,
it is the complete opposite. Personally, this is not a responsiblity
that I cherish.
It is a great struggle just to keep up with the process.
With the help of various people, to do translations, to make
comments, etc. , we
try to manage.
* If we are to resolve your questions and carry out your suggestions, it
will require more
people stepping forward to help.
Respectfully,
WJM
Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a long message I'm afraid. Since the announcement of the
> speaking slots for CS, I have been feeling very uncomfortable, more
> than I ever felt since the very begining of the WSIS process, having
> participated to all PrepComs, Paris intersession, and some other
> WSIS-related meetings. In the following text, I'm proposing a short
> personal analysis of the situation, as well as some concrete proposals
> which are mine, and by no mean those of the Human Rights Caucus, which
> is one of the recipients of this email.
>
> I would be very much interested in reading your comments on this
> anlysis and proposal.
>
> Best regards,
> Meryem Marzouki
> PS. I'm writing this in English, so that most people can read, but I
> would like very much to see translation of this analysis and proposal
> be provided, if possible.
> ===============
> CS Speaker nominations - A personal short analysis and proposal
>
> Since the announcement by the WSIS executive secretariat of speaking
> slots for observers during the Summit, civil society organizations
> have been the consentent victims of a very strange virus : the
> nomination fever. Without any discussion on the opportunity to take
> part in the proposed process or any questioning of this process,
> nominations have started, and, even more amazingly, the Content and
> Themes group have decided to act as the nominations repository and
> coordinating body.
>
> 1/ The proposed process:
> The WSIS executive secretariat has proposed the following speaking
> slots for CS:
> - 1 slot in opening session (5mn)
> - 12 slots for declarations during the general debate (3mn each)
> - 18 slots in round-tables
>
> All nominees for the general debate and the round-tables should
> represent, in my understanding of the secretariat proposal, an
> organization accredited to the WSIS, and "should be at the very top
> level of their organizations or entities", as put by the secretariat.
>
> The Civil Society Bureau (CSB) has been asked to propose speakers to
> the executive secretariat, the ITU remaining sovereign in choosing or
> not these speakers, or even nominating other speakers than those
> proposed by the CSB.
>
> 2/ The process undertaken by CS:
> Again, without any discussion or questioning, CS participants have
> accepted this process, starting nominations. Moreover, the Content and
> Themes group (and not the CSB), has decided to coordinate this
> nominating process.
> This nomination fever has been so high that many CS organizations have
> started proposing speakers who, for some of them:
> - have never even showed their faces at any WSIS-related event, and/or
> - have never said a word regarding WSIS and its process, and/or
> - are not representing an accredited organization or an organization
> having asked for accreditation, and/or
> - are not "at the very top level of their organizations or entities",
> hence are not fulfilling the administrative prerequisite set by the
> secretariat
>
> 3/ The process undertaken by the C&T group:
> Why the Content and Theme group, which has democratically acted till
> now, as fas as the circumstances have permitted, has stopped this way
> of behaving, and started to engage in the nominating process ?
> Could a reasonable answer be : to show that the Content and Theme
> group is, contrarily to the CSB, the adequate body to represent CS
> self-organization ?
> Till now, this has been indeed the case. The C&T group has, till now,
> done a great job in compiling CS documents taking into account inputs
> from legitimate, self-organized entities, i.e. the caucuses and
> working groups. It has also been a key element in coordinating CS
> speaking slots during PrepComs and intersessions, organizing the
> democratic decision about the repartition of speaking slots among
> caucuses, so that all issues can be covered.
> However, I have to say the C&T group is now acting like the CSB. To go
> on with the democratic process, the C&T group should have started by
> first asking CS organizations if CS should go on with the proposed
> process, and how.
>
> 4/ Questions to be asked before any nomination, and proposal to CS
> organizations:
> - Should the participating CS organizations nominate a personnality
> for the opening session ?
> My own answer is yes.
> The reason is that the importance of this opening session speaker is
> not negligible, since his/her message will be reported by mainstream
> medias which, as usual, will only be reporting on WSIS through the
> Summit itself and, probably, mainly through the opening session.
> This person should be very high-profile, most desirably from the
> South, raising an overarching issue, and charismatic enough to deliver
> a very strong message not only to heads of States who will attend, but
> also to the medias, then.
> I've personnaly proposed `madame Aminata Traoré, not because she is a
> former minister, but because she is the founder of the "Forum for
> another Mali", she fulfills the requirement set above, and she has a
> strong message to deliver to WSIS and the world, just like she did at
> the Bamako WSIS regional conference and at many other occasions, or
> even in stronger words. I would welcome other proposals of the same kind.
>
> - Should the participating CS organizations nominate speakers for the
> general debate ?
> My own answer is yes, but only if the following process is adopted.
> Although CS nominations are subject to acceptance or refusal by the
> executive secretariat and the ITU, and although during the Summit
> there wouldn't be any chance to see the Declaration and Plan of action
> modified, this general debate could be seen by CS just like the
> PrepComs and Intersessions plenaries, and it could be the occasion to
> present our conclusions on the Summit official texts, process and
> follow-up. To this end, these CS speakers for declarations during the
> general debate should be nominated following exactly the same process
> as for the PrepComs and Intersessions: each caucus should have a
> chance to tell its conclusions. The Content and Themes groups should
> be in charge of coordinating these nominations, and propose relevant
> merging if there are more proposals than speaking slots.
> The compilation of such declarations by caucuses could be a very good
> alternative declaration from CS.
>
> IT IS STILL TIME TO DO THAT.
>
> It is still time to take this aspirin, be releived from this fever,
> and fight this strange virus.
> I'm particularly addressing this suggestion to CS organizations and
> people that, till now, have shown a true and sincere willing to
> participate to the WSIS process, without showing a "collaboration"
> behavior pursuing their own opportunistic agenda and private
> interests, and without loosing any credibility.
> I'm particularly addressing this suggestion to the Content and Themes
> group, so that it doesn't become yet another "CS bureau", at the very
> end of the WSIS process, and so that it doesn't risk loosing its
> legitimacy.
>
> - Should the participating CS organizations nominate speakers for the
> round-tables ?
> My own answer is no, definitely no.
> What is the purpose of these round-tables ? Are we in an amicable
> discussion process with friends or colleagues ? No, we are in a UN
> Summit process. Are we here for legitimation ? No, we are here to meet
> other CS organizations, establish networks, follow the Summit process
> and try to impact some (very little as we know, not surprisingly)
> output of the Summit.
> I am not that naive. I know that many CS organizations have and will
> nominate speakers for round-tables. I know that the secretariat and
> ITU will choose their speakers. They will have a cup of tea with some
> heads of states. So what ? Let's let them do that, this wont change
> anything. But please, let's let them do that AS INDIVIDUAL
> ORGANIZATIONS, without any implicit or explicit approval of "the world
> civil society", since this is the way CS organizations participating
> to the WSIS will be called, specially by the media. Let's ensure that
> they are not proposed by caucuses, and specially not by "CS
> self-organizing bodies".
>
> --
> Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
> IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
> 294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris
> Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ct mailing list
> Ct at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
> Civil Society Plenary: http://www.wsis-cs.org/
> Content & Themes Documents:
> http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/bscw.cgi/0/4295379
> 8
--
Bill McIver
Assistant Professor
School of Information Science and Policy
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, New York 12222
USA
e-mail: mciver at albany.edu
URL: http://www.albany.edu/~mciver
More information about the Plenary
mailing list