(Fwd) Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Nominations for the general debate

[jeanette at wz-berlin.de]

Ok, below once again my reply to Meryem,

jeanette 




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


------- End of forwarded message -------