[WSIS CS-Plenary] Nominations for the general debate

[karen banks]

sincere apologies,

List alias problems momentarily. If you have received an error message to 
the @wsis-cs.org lists that the list does not exist, please resend.

karen

>From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:43:24 -0000
>Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nominations for the general debate
>
>On 12 Nov 2003 at 9:36, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>
>
>Hi, Meryem,
>
>I have 2 comments or better, requests for clarification.
>
>First, I don't understand why there should be only one way to select
>speakers for the general debate and why active members of
>caususes should be the only source for speakers. I would imagine
>that their might be suitable candidates for the general debate who
>didn't have the chance to contribute to a caucus. As you know
>yourself, the WSIS  is a fairly time consuming business. In my view,
>it seems a bit rigid to restrict the selection of speakers to caucus
>members.
>
>My second comment refers to the alternative declaration. Do you
>think it should be just a compilation of contributions without any
>further attempts to form a coherent vision?
>
>jeanette
> >
> > [To the speakers list: Sorry for the delay, I've problems with the SMTP
> > server, so I'm now using a webmail]
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It seems that sending long messages isn't the best way to have them
> > discussed. I'm then reposting my proposal on the nominations for the
> > general debate (NOT Opening or Round-Tables):
> >
> > "- 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."
> >
> > Thus, I would like to have your comments on that.
> >
> > Meryem