[WSIS CS-Plenary] About the general debate

[wolfgang at imv.au.dk]

He all,

in todays Plenary there was a discussion of a middle of the road" or double strategy"" approach which would go as follows:

Not to walk out from the conference und to "withdraw"ion a spectacular action "legitimacy"from the final documents but express dissatisfaction and use all opportunities to make the differences between the final compromised documents and the CS vision clear
a. in the speaking slots CS has in the official meetings and round tables and 
b. in the four press conferences which CS will have every day during the summit from Tuesday onwards. The CS Press conferences are each day from 4.00 - 4.45 p.m.

The press conferences are probably more important than the speaking slots. My proposal is that the first CS PC is on our alternative Declaration""and "Procedures". The other three days we should have each day two or three concrete issues, like IPR, Security, Human Rights, Internet Governace or so, where we can explain in detail what the differences are between the governmental compromises and the CS visions. 

With regard to the Alternative Declaration, it should be in part emancipated"" from the governmental declaraiton, that is not follow the basic original text. It should use a langauge which people can understand. If we call for an Information Society with a human face we have to use a simple, clear and precise language so that people and the press will see the difference and understand the argument easily. 

The alternative declaration should be brief and, naturally, based on the already existing key points, non-negotiables etc. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The dateline would not be the end of PrepCom3bis but early December.

Best

wolfgang

-- Original Message --
From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Send: 07:59 PM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] About the general debate


Hi Jeanette,

Regarding your first question:
My idea is not to exclude anyone, but rather to use this opportunity of
the general debate to do a kind of public wrap-up of all the work made
by the CS organizations since the very beginning of the WSIS process.
After all, the Summit is supposed to adopt a Declaration of principles
and a plan of action, and, just like we reacted to the many intermediate
versions, we should provide our final opinion on the final text.
Having caucus representatives doing that is the best way to try to cover
all issues, as well as to try to have a consolidated final opinion from
CS organizations having participated to the process.

Regarding your second question:
ACtually, it way mainly a way for me to have people wake up on the
alternative declaration issue. Of course, this declaration should be
more than just a compilation of contributions. But these contributions
may provide some guidelines, or head of sections, at least.

Meryem

Le mercredi, 12 nov 2003, à 20:32 Europe/Paris, jeanette at wz-berlin.de
a
écrit :


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 -------
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary