[WSIS CS-Plenary] Traduction frs/A personal short analysis and proposal

[DUHAMIC-ADRI]

Merci de cette traduction en français

Benineza Innocent
DUHAMIC ADRI

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sevgi Tarlan" <sevgitarlan at hotmail.com>
To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2003 2:27 AM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Traduction frs/A personal short analysis and
proposal


> Bonjour Meryem,
>
> J'ai lu votre mail concernant les nominations des intervenants et j'ai
> apprécié l'analyse. J'ai traduit votre message (voir annexe). Est-ce que
> vous pourriez le relire avant de l'envoyer sur la liste? Je n'ai pas envie
> de déformer involontairement ce que vous aviez à dire...
>
> Bien à vous,
>
> Sevgi Tarlan
> SUNY Albany
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Meryem Marzouki" <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
> To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>; <ct at wsis-cs.org>
> Cc: <hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org>; "CRISINFO" <crisinfo at comunica.org>
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:52 AM
> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CS Speaker nominations - A personal short
> analysis and proposal
>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>