[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Civil Society Overpasses proposal
RunningToddler
amkt at apcwomen.org
Wed Nov 26 12:16:52 GMT 2003
I agree to Sean's proposal and yes, there's a need to get clearer answers.
Warm regards,
Angela
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
To: <bureau at geneva2003.org>; <bureau at wsis-cs.org>; <ct at wsis-cs.org>;
<plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Cc: <louise.lassonde at ties.itu.int>; <liliane.ursache at ties.itu.int>
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Civil Society Overpasses proposal
I strongly agree with Sean's email. Could the CS division please
reply to Sean's 3 questions and his proposal for the opening ceremony.
Goal is surly to make sure those organizations that have been working
over the past 18 months at least have the opportunity to be present
during the opening ceremony.
Thanks,
Adam
(we also need to figure out how to make sure CS organizations
holding side events know they have been specifically invited to the
Friday afternoon final plenary to perhaps give an overview of their
event. 180+ events. Unlikely many will have chance to speak, but
they should have the chance to be there.)
At 4:41 AM +0000 11/26/03, Sean O Siochru wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-574F5D77;
>boundary="=====================_96321382==.ALT"
>
>Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-574F5D77; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>Hi all
>
>This process was announced too fast and without the full information
>we need. Let me summarise
>
>The note that Renata sent on Nov 6th was the basis on which everyone
>expected to move. Louise then said we need names only for the
>opening ceremony '"well in advance" and so (presumably for that
>reason) proposed that the Bureau should do so. Meryem has pointed
>out all the reasons why the Bureau should not. Renata has now said
>that we do not in fact need the names right now, but simply need to
>have them prepared in advance. Richard has pointed at that this is
>really only the opening ceremony - you might get to se lots of big
>names but that is about it.
>
>It is clear that some 'families' have ready lists to hand, because
>they are close to a given caucus (which is an argument for caucuses
>to do it) or because they have an identifiable group. But lots of
>others - including the Networks and Coalitions Family of which
>myself and YJ are focal points - do not believe that this process is
>right - one way or the other, we will devote our numbers according
>to the initial plan (4 for the family) unless something else is
>agreed.
>
>Angela has already called for the Caucuses and Working Groups to put
>names forward. I think that should proceed, possibly on the basis
>of the proposal below.
>
>
>But first, can we please have full and complete information on the issue??
>
>1) How urgent is the need for names and when precisely is a list
>needed? What are the other 'security' aspects (are photos going to
>be used - will the 'lucky' six hundred have to queue for hours)?
>
>2) What is the link between the Opening Session passes and the later
>ones e.g. Will the Opening Ceremony passes be distributed on the
>basis of your ID and your name being on a list, or personalised. If
>the former, will they be passed on to others?
>
>3) Do we adhere to our original proposal from Renata for the rest
>of the Summit? The Bureau and secretariat i going to have to put the
>logistics in place for that
>
>But we do have room for manoeuvre. Here is a proposal.
>
>The main difference in the current needs for the Opening Session, as
>compared to the original proposal from Renata, is that there will
>be no element of 'first come first served'. i.e. we need to gather
>all the names in advance, not just half as we had proposed.
>
>The original proposal was that :
>
>27 Working groups and Caucuses would have 8 each = 216
>21 Bureau families each with 4 each = 84;
>Content & Themes group = 5
>
>This leave 295 (about half) unallocated. For the opening ceremony
>only, we could increase as follows:
>Caucus and Working Group to say 15 each (=405)
>Bureau families to say 9 (= 189);
>and six for the C&T group (the goal there was to ensure that the
>main C&T coordinators would get to hear what was going on.)
>
>The Bureau should facilitate this, and if some nominations are not
>in by a given date (which depends on answer to above), then the
>empty slots can be taken up by extra names given by the various
>groups - or whatever.
>
>Sean
>
>At 11:35 25/11/2003 -0500, Bahiyyih Chaffers wrote:
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>From: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:ct-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf
>>Of RunningToddler
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:57 AM
>>To: Subject: [WSIS-CT] RE: Message on registration and overpasses
>>Importance: High
>>
>>
>>Hello all,
>>
>> Can we quickly come to a decision on this? I believe Renate is
>>busy organising her CONGO event and may not be able to respond as
>>fast.
>>
>> These 30 names per family, would that mean that all passes would
>>be allocated and none for first-come first-served basis?
>>
>> We cannot afford to ask CS participants to find a home with
>>families now when we're supposed to be submitting names already. We
>>cannot afford any kind of time-engaging process. This would mean
>>having to double-check if names overlap in anyway from all of us.
>>Why are names necessary in the first place since these are, if I'm
>>not mistaken, daily passes? Why is there a need to prioritise these
>>names?
>>
>> Louise? Liliane? Please help clarify and also explain what
>>happened to the proposal first placed on the table through Renate's
>>lead.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Angela
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <mailto:info at laneta.apc.org>Olinca Marino
>> To: <mailto:bureau at wsis-cs.org>bureau at wsis-cs.org ;
>><mailto:bureau at wsis-cs.org>bureau at wsis-cs.org
>> Cc: <mailto:bureau at geneva2003.org>bureau at geneva2003.org
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 3:37 AM
>> Subject: RE: [Bureau] RE: Message on registration and overpasses
>> Dear All,
>> I really think "the size" is a considerable problem to share
>>overpasses taking as "basis" the families:
>> - in one hand, we have families with 2 or 3 persons or even
>>without active members (only with the name), and
>> - in the other hand, we have "families" with more than 60 persons.
>> regards,
>> Olinca
>>
>>
>>
>>At 12:30 p.m. 24/11/2003 -0800, John R. Gagain Jr. wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Dear All,
>>> I agree with and support Nick's sentiments below. Content groups
>>>/ caucuses
>>> have been created, re-created, canceled, etc all on an ad-hoc
>>>on-going basis
>>> throughout the WSIS process. YJ, you mention that these groups have
been
>>> "more active", but I believe you must be clear and state "substantively
>>> actively" and I dont think that we should say that any one entity has
been
>>> more active or better. All mechanisms have played their role in an
extreme
>>> effort to collaborate.
>>> Additionally, the "substantively active" has been due to the fact
>>>that since
>>> the very beginning we have established that the CSB would not
>>>involve itself
>>> in substance and to this day, its only involvement in such has been the
>>> presence of the CT Working Group as an observer on the WSIS Civil
Society
>>> Bureau. The role of the CSB has proved to be invaluable and
increasingly
>>> served to fill an important role since the Paris Intersessional.
Please do
>>> not downplay that role due to its mandate and limits on addressing
>>> substance.
>>> Sincerely,
>>> John R. Gagain Jr.
>>> Think-Tanks Focal Point
>>> WSIS Civil Society Bureau
>>> j.gagain at funglode.org
>>>
>>>-----Mensaje original-----
>>> De: bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org]En nombre
>>> de Nick Moraitis
>>> Enviado el: Sunday, November 23, 2003 10:23 PM
>>> Para: bureau at geneva2003.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org
>>> CC: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>> Asunto: [Bureau] RE: Message on registration and overpasses
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi all,
>>> Not terribly fussed on this, but my personal input would be that I
>>> generally feel like it should be kept simple - with the families
>>> responsible alone. I don't know what the basis of Caucuses and Working
>>> Groups is or how new ones are created and recognized by others as
>>> existing. I do get the impression that they are generally considered
>>> "content groups". On the other hand, the definition, role and number
of
>>> actors within the Bureau and the role of the Secretariat seems clearer,
>>> more logistic-oriented, and more suited to this task - as per the
>>> descriptions on:
>>> http://www.wsis-cs.org/cs-overview.html
>>> I suggest that the agreed families (perhaps excluding the Regional
>>> families) should "enable any civil society entity to find a 'home'" and
>>> if not the Secretariat should keep some extra passes over for those on
a
>>> first come-first-serve basis who "chose not to associate with some or
>>> all of the above entities".
>>> Louise, one question - if the youth caucus were to submit a list of
>>> names for 30 people for the Opening Session to assist with security and
>>> advance planning, when would be the last date to submit such a list,
and
>>> what possibility would there be to change names? (considering for
>>> example, any unforseen but probably likely complications with travel
and
>>> visas for a few participants?).
>>> Cheers
>>> Nick
>>> Youth Family/Caucus facilitator
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: bureau-request at geneva2003.org
>>> [mailto:bureau-request at geneva2003.org] On Behalf Of YJ Park
>>> Sent: November 24, 2003 1:01 AM
>>> To: bureau at geneva2003.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org
>>> Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>> Subject: Re: Message on registration and overpasses
>>>
>>>Thank Sean for pointing this out.
>>> As it has been observed in the WSIS civil society process,
>>> more active partcipation and coordination has been done
>>> through working groups and caucuses in cooperation with
>>> CS content and theme group on the volunteer basis.
>>> In principle, CS family structure in the civil society proposed
>>> by CSD is supposed to play a role of organizer or coordinator
>>> but most substantial coordination has been made by volunteers
>>> from civil society plenary so far.
>>> As Sean addressed, it seems more natural for CS working
>>> groups or caucuses to handle this issue in conjunction with family.
>>> Therefore, the following proposal sounds more reasonable than
>>> only family inputs.
>>> Working groups and Caucuses: 27 of these each with 8 = 216
>>> (assumption that many family members are part of WGs)
>>> Bureau Families 21 families each with 4 = 84
>>> Content & Themes group 5
>>> Total pre allocated: 305
>>> First comes first served = 295
>>> One more clarification about the number of passes. Technically,
>>> as requested if 22 family provides 30 members, it is 660. How many
>>> passes are we talking about here? I thought 295.
>>> YJ
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Sean O Siochru
>>> To: bureau at geneva2003.org ; bureau at wsis-cs.org
>>> Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:11 PM
>>> Subject: Re: Message on registration and overpasses
>>>
>>>Louise
>>> Renata's suggestions of November 6th, developed by a group of us,
>>> proposed that passes be made available as follows:
>>> Distribution:
>>> <Working groups and Caucuses: 27 of these each with 8 = 216
(assumption
>>> that many family members are part of WGs)
>>> <Bureau Families 21 families each with 4 = 84
>>> <Content & Themes group 5
>>> <Total pre allocated: 305
>>> <First comes first served = 295.
>>> Why are families being asked to come with 30 names each? Why not the
>>> working groups and caucuses?
>>> Sean
>>>
>>>At 17:08 21/11/2003 +0100, Louise Lassonde wrote:
>>>
>>>Dear Bureau members,
>>> Registration
>>> We would like to inform you of the state of registration as of today.
>>> So far, 3000 Civil Society participants have registered and we expect
>>> 25% more to come in the next weeks;
>>> 1000 governement, we expect at least 2X more to come in the next weeks.
>>> Overpasses
>>> 600 overpasses have been allocated to Civil Society and we have
>>> requested 150 more for the World Electronic Media Forum.
>>> Renate Bloem (NGO Family) made a proposal on the 6th November on the
>>> allocation of overpasses.
>>> In addition, it seems appropriate for the opening ceremony to have a
>>> name list well in advance for security reasons. May we ask each family
>>> to draw up a list of 30 names (in order of priority).
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>Cher Membre du Bureau,
>>>
>>>Enregistrement
>>> Nous aimerions vous informer de létat davancement de lenregistrement
>>> au jour daujourdhui.
>>> Pour le moment,3000 participants de la société civile se sont
>>> enregistrés
>>> et nous
>>> prévoyons encore 25% dinscriptions supplémentaires durant les
>>> prochaines semaines ; 1000 représentants des gouvernements, nous
>>> prévoyons au moins le double pour les prochaines semaines.
>>> Laissez-passer
>>>
>>>600 laissez-passer ont été alloués à la société civile et nous en avons
>>> demandé 150 de plus pour le World Electronic Media Forum.
>>> Renate a fait une proposition le 6 novembre concernant lallocation des
>>> laissez-passer.
>>> De plus, il semble approprié pour louverture de la cérémonie davoir à
>>> lavance une liste de noms pour des questions de sécurité.
>>> Pourrions-nous demander à chaque famille de dresser une liste de 30
noms
>>> (par ordre de priorité).
>>>
>>>
>>>Meilleures salutations
>>> Savita
>>> --
>>> The Secretariat
>>> Civil Society Division
>>> World Summit on the Information
>>> Society
>>> ---
>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003
>>> ___________________________________________________
>>> Seán Ó Siochrú Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473
>>> 0597
>>> NEXUS Research Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
>>> 14 Eaton Brae Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739 fax: +353 1 272
0034
>>> Shankill
>>> Co. Dublin e-mail: sean at nexus.ie
>>> Ireland Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bureau mailing list
>>> Bureau at wsis-cs.org
>>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>> Bureau mailing list
>>> Bureau at wsis-cs.org
>>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>LaNeta S.C.
>> http://www.laneta.apc.org
>> Información desde las organizaciones civiles en México.
>> LaNeta S.C. es miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las
>>Comunicaciones, APC
>> http://www.apc.org
>>
>>
>>---
>>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003
>>
>
>___________________________________________________
>Seán Ó Siochrú Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473 0597
>NEXUS Research Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
>14 Eaton Brae Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739 fax: +353 1 272 0034
>Shankill
>Co. Dublin e-mail: sean at nexus.ie
>Ireland Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.530 / Virus Database: 325 - Release Date: 22/10/2003
--
More information about the Plenary
mailing list