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

[Adam Peake]

Ralf,

Thanks for these notes.  Agree very much.

An additional strategy could be to write a letter, from all civil 
society, saying we do not accept, and perhaps word it "do not sign" 
the declaration (and plan of action, but declaration is key.)

It's possible that by the end of Friday (tomorrow) there will be a 
perfect declaration (really?) But, more likely it will continue to be 
as weak as it is now (weak on human rights, weak on gender?, ignoring 
people with disabilities, etc.) and saying we do not accept/sign, and 
getting support from all caucuses and families to say we do not sign 
might be possible.

Any letter should be positive where it can be: Might say we are have 
enjoyed the process and look forward to realization of the 
multi-stakeholder approach in the process to Tunis. Might say we are 
fully committed to being at the Summit, to working with our 
colleagues from govt., business, etc., and we will be contributing 
fully to the Summit, in events and discussions.  But we cannot 
accept/sign the declaration, and then say why in 4, 5 or 6 key 
bullets (it's a step backwards on the last 50 years of the UN history 
of promoting universal rights, it's a step backwards on gender 
rights, justice and equality [if the gender caucus agrees), after 
many years of work raising the position of people with disabilities 
in society, they are ignored in the first document defining 
"information society", etc.)  A small number of key items the media 
might pick up on.

It might be possible to get complete agreement from all caucuses, 
working groups and families on short statement of this kind. The 
families are important, they are the bureau and the bureau is our 
means to communication with the governments.

And I realize that we have not been asked to sign the declaration. 
But saying we do not sign rather than just do not accept might also 
send a message about the process: multi-stakeholder, we as one 
stakeholder do not sign-off on the outcome.

Thanks,

Adam




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


--