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

[Rainer Kuhlen]

full support for Adam´s proposal
R.Kuhlen

Adam Peake wrote:

> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Prof. Dr. Rainer Kuhlen
Chair of NETHICS e.V. (Ethics in the Net) - www.nethics.net
Department of Computer and Information Science - University of Konstanz
Box D 87
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
email: rainer.kuhlen at uni-konstanz.de
URL: http://www.inf-wiss.uni-konstanz.de/People/rk.html

Phone Univ.: ++49 (0)7531 - 882879; Fax: ++49 (0)7531 882048
Mobile 0049 0171 452 7010
Phone Berlin ++49 (0)30 / 275 94241; Fax: /27594260