[WSIS CS-Plenary] Phase II - Comments - ideas for discussion..

[Robert Guerra]

Note: This is long message which i've written before taking my 
morning coffee. Please see these comments as my personal opinion. My 
purpose is to suggest a more focused and strategic discussion on this 
list.

The creation of the virtual participation group generated a great 
deal of discussion. My purpose here isn't to get into details, but 
more share my personal observations how that relates to the larger 
discussion at hand - that of this list and it's role in planning, 
sharing, and observation of the WSIS process.

1. The creation of the Virtual Working group did indeed generate a 
great deal of discussion. So much so, that  the latin american and 
Caribbean caucus  drafted a formal protest note and opened it up to 
signatories!

2. One has to be careful - that it is easy to get sidetracked, 
distracted in a way from the larger issues at hand.

A case in point - In the discussion related to open source (F/OSS) 
and the virtual participation group, I feel the original focus/idea 
was lost. Which was (and is) to bring together a group of people, of 
organizations who are interested in learning, researching, and yes 
collaborating to know what tools are out "there" to improve the way 
we "virtually" collaborate.

I had hoped people could recommend concrete F/OSS tools (such as 
Gnomemeeting, and others) which exist and/or are being developed - 
but that didn't happen. So if you know of a tool which allows for 
virtual meetings to occur (using text, voice, video and/or 
application sharing) - then , pretty please - send me a private note 
about it so that I can add it to the list being maintained on the 
Working Group Wiki.


3. Throughout the WSIS process Civil Society (those on this list 
included) talked about key values which must be followed - values of:

* Transparency
* Openness
* Inclusion (which can said to include honest and true collaboration)

but, have those values been followed on this very list? Have people, 
organizations and the working groups been as open, transparent and 
inclusive as possible?

As i'm mentioned (now on numerous occasions) , I am very worried 
about the lack of substance being discussed on  the CS lists. For 
example

(a) where is the discussion and debate about Phase I? What reports 
have been written? where are they available, and in what languages 
are they available?
    (for example, what do people think about Anriette Esterhuysen's 
recent paper?)

(b) Viola Krebs and I raised at the March informal meeting some very 
key concerns about the CS bureau, its norms and ideas on how to go 
forward. These points were articulated in the report Viola circulated 
- however, no comments to-date? Do people not care? or have they not 
even seen the report?

if you haven't  - it's here - 
http://cms.privaterra.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=47


(c) OpenWSIS - increasingly it's getting a higher profile and 
Bertrand de la Chappell is getting funding from the Swiss and others 
to move it forward. But do we know what what it's mission is? Is it 
just a space for discussion, or is it shaping up to be the new 
platform for funding and participation for WSIS?

is openwsis really open - or the efforts of a few to advance a 
specific non-open agenda? I honestly don't know, and would like to 
hear from Bertrand and others as to what's going on.

(d) List Overload - Too many lists, too little real content

Might i propose an idea - that working groups that are active 
regularly send in a short report to the plenary list on their 
activities, accomplishments and upcoming meetings.Say, would sending 
in a month report be something feasible to do?

(e) Funding - gone...?

Another topic that i'm amazed isn't being discussed here is the one 
of funding. I mean, we have no funding, the CS secretariat is no 
longer, and there is no coordinated efforts (yet) underway to 
facilitate and coordinate CS participation.

Do people care? Even though we all in a way compete for funding, 
would it not make sense - to try to collaborate to find the funding, 
the resources  and partners so that CS can participate in the 
upcoming PrepCom and variety of regional and thematic meetings being 
planned in the months ahead.

(f) next steps - planning ahead

Might we want to start a discussion, in the open, and in a 
transparent fashion of  what strategy, plans, timelines and #$%^&# we 
want to do between now and Nov 2005.

We need, we must take this seriously  as if not, we can easily get 
distracted - and miss the "boat"

- Well, i now have my coffee - which i desperately need..so i'll stop 
and await comments from everyone on the points i've raised above.


regards

Robert



-- 
###
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org>