[WSIS CS-Plenary] Civil Society Strategy Issues, outcomes of meeting today

[Ralf Bendrath]

Hi all, 

we met in a new working group today to discuss the general strategy we
as civil society should choose towards the whole summit. It was
triggered by the work on the "Non-Negotiables" document and the obvious
question following from this: "What will happen on our side if our
demands are not met?".

The following list is a summary of the issues that were raised. We did
not decide on anything, as these questions definitely have to be dealt
with in the plenary. 
However, the general consensus in the group was: 

1. The "multistakeholder" label gives uns some power. We can threaten to
refuse lending our legitimacy to the summit outcomes. That means: For
the first time we as civil society have a bargaining chip in an
international process. We have to think about how to use it, as this is
a new situation for civil society.

2. We should stay inside thew summit activities (we have every right to
be there!), but really make sure that our concerns are clearly and
visibly communicated. There is some room between just walking out and
playing the game and being nice.

2. The latter point is obviously strongly related to the question of who
will speak on our behalf at the summit opening ceremony and in the
roundtables. It should be a major issue in the nominations ad hoc
committee. (And yes, please don't discuss these on the plenary list any
more!)

The next meeting of the strategy group will be on Thursday, 18:00, down
in the Cybercafe at CICG.

Best regards, 

Ralf Bendrath
editor, http://www.worldsummit2003.org


-----------------------------
Civil Society Strategy Issues
raised at the strategy working group meeting on 11 November 2003, 18:00
CET


--------
analysis
--------

- General question: Our "non-negotiables" will foreseeably not be met.
What do we do then?
- The more negotiations on content are messes up among governments, the
more the multistakeholder approach is becoming central to the whole
success of the summit. At least this is what the secretariat com
municates in its press releases etc. See
<http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/510.htm> for a detailed analysis. 
- This gives uns some power. We can threaten to refuse lending our
legitimacy to the summit outcomes. That means: For the first time we as
civil society have a bargaining chip in an international process.
- This is new and unusual for us. We have to learn how to use it. So
far, we have done classical lobbying like we would not have any power
here.

------------------------
strategic options for us
------------------------
- Walking out and go back to the "streets". Even having demonstrations?
- Linking more with alternative/counter summit events like
www.geneva03.org
- Staying in (we have the right to be there!) and telling our story and
critique of the summit: Connect with nomination issue for our slots
- Getting endorsement for our "non-negotiables" document from as many
organisations as possible (individual organisations as well as joint CS
groups like CT group or even CS plenary)
- Presenting our vision! Endorsement issue as above.
- Who is our audience? TV viewers or governments? At the summit
(different from the preparatory process), it will be more TV viewers and
newspaper readers, as the world public will look at Geneva then.
- Will lobbying still make sense in December at the summit? This
probably depends on what issues are still open among the governments by
then.
- What to do with the other observers (business and international
organisations)? We should find out their assessment of the process and
the outcomes. Maybe there is some common ground!
- There will be many different side-events at the summit. How do we
focus attention to our overarching and common concerns?

-----------------------------
to do's / ideas for follow-up
-----------------------------

- Prepare detailed assessment of where our issues got in and where not,
also on process. This will be done in follow-up to the "Non-Negotiables"
document).
- Pre-emptive "warning" at the end of this week on what we could do at
the summit (press release/conference): "We will not accept the final
documents"
- Link our strategy discussion with the nomination of our speakers at
the official summit events and make sure the statement delivered at the
sum mit plenary will fit into the strategy
- Link up with organisations that have not been involved in the WSIS
process so far (new ones and "countersummit" activists)
- Define and make clear whom we represent, just write it for the press
(CS plenary etc., "we do not represent everybody, but we did not exclude
anybody")
- Prepare joint press events for the summit (we need a press team!)
- Find out the other observer groups' assessments. Rumour is that they
are also annoyed by not being heard.
- Organize some online space. Do we want a joint CS website for the
summit? What will happen to www.wsis-cs.org? (I guess the webmasters
will have another coordination meeting this week.)
- Decide about joint space at the summit. Do we have CS plenary there?
Here the 600 passes limit is a serious problem. Nice idea: Everybody who
does not get in is automatically demonstrating on the street. ;-)