[WSIS CS-Plenary] Passes - The latest scandal

[richard t jordan]

--Hi, Richard Jordan here -- summits and tickets are very funny occurrences. In Johannesburg, there were real problems. At Small Island States in 1994 in Barbados, there were only 50 tickets for ALL NGOs in the plenary, and there was a system whereby when you exited you gave the ticket to the security officer and then that ticket was given to the next person in line.

All summits are different. My own experience in the UN, avoid the opening session, that is the most jammed. After that, most times, everyone gets in.

The World Summit on Trade Efficiency in columbus Ohio was a prime example. HUNDREDS of extra police were brought in.

After one day, when they realized that there were only 2 NGOs present, Bill Stibravy of Intl. Chamber of Commerce and myself, the massive overtime became budget-expendable!

There were no masses teaming to get in. Remember too that this is Switzerland, and that the Swiss are very precise and that there is a RULE FOR EVERYTHING. A friend once saw me drinking water from a juice glass and said "Wouldn't you rather use a water glass?"

If possible, do your best to relax. I have worked with the 13th Police Precinct Community Council for 20 years here in NYC and probably am one of the few NGOs who understand that with security, rules can change and usually do every 10 minutes.

So, be prepared for on-the-spot shift of whatever you thought the rules were and know that it's going to be for 3 days and that we will have to be as flexible as possible.

If this were Barbados and the SIDS conference, I would sit back, take in a breeze and enjoy some local beverrage.

Swiss wine in a wine glass. And Thomas Ruddy, no picnicking!

Best regards, Richard Jordan 

--------- Original Message ---------

DATE: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:21:15
From: Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org>
To: ct at wsis-cs.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org, wsis-euc at fsfeurope.org

>Hi all,
>
>I've followed the exchanges regarding the issue of passes for the 
>summit. They expresses the latest scandal regarding the process.
>
>First of all, this issue has been in formal or informal discussion for 
>a while, at least since early November. I've heard about that 
>informally at that time, and was asked for advice. The latest 
>arrangement that should have been suggested by the CSB was the one 
>recently recalled by Sean, i.e. a fair repartition of half of the total 
>passes among "families" and caucuses/WG (fair meaning that caucuses/WG 
>can allocate twice the number of passes allocated by "families"), the 
>other half of the total being allocated on a first come first served 
>basis. Moreover, if I well remember, these badges shouldn't have been 
>nominative badges, i.e. they could be passed along from one person to 
>another from the same caucus/WG, under the responsibility of the 
>caucuses.
>
>Second, let me recall what I've continuously said since PrepCom2 
>regarding the CSB: apart perhaps for some of them, most are not 
>representative of anything. My organization, which is supposed to 
>"belong" to at least three "families" (Europe&North America, NGOs, 
>social networks or whatever this is called), has never been consulted 
>on anything, apart from the remarkable efforts from Sean and Angela to 
>keep the plenary aware of important decisions being made in our names.
>
>Third, most of the "families", as designated by the CSD, either have no 
>meaning or have nothing to do with civil society. I wont give again the 
>arguments for that, I'm tired of doing this.
>
>Fourth, the "families" are unbalanced and at the same time overlapping 
>: e.g. the NGO "family" obviously includes many more entities than any 
>other "family" and regional groups obviously overlap with "statutory" 
>groups. What is the point then in giving the same amount to each 
>"family" ?!
>
>Fifth, it's really interesting to see at the same time the latest 
>tentative to discredit the civil society self-organization through 
>caucuses and WG, coordinated by the Content & Themes group, and its 
>work since the beginning of the process. We have already seen that on 
>this list, short before PrepCom3.
>
>Finally, we can say that the CSB has played his role towards the CSD 
>and the executive secretariat as a whole. Not towards the civil society 
>organizition participating to the WSIS process.
>
>The only really fair process would be to provide passes to any CS 
>organization accredited to WSIS (which means at least participation in 
>the process), and, since rooms are limited in capacity, let pass 
>holders in on a first come first served basis. This is enough security 
>ensuring: these organizations are known enough from the huge amount of 
>paper they had to provide.
>
>Any additional pass provided to "new comers just for the show" is the 
>business of the executive secretariat, not ours.
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>



____________________________________________________________
Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail!
http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005