[WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada question on CS and process: all well ending well

[Liss Jeffrey]

Hey all: Last time for this.
We are all well on the way to a renewed civil society structure in Canada. 
It is my profound conviction that our collective reflection will result in 
action, and we will help as far as possible with implementation and other 
initiatives in the steps to Tunis.
Now that Robert has apologized for his mistake in sending a message to the 
whole list, I know that we will keep this next dialogue at our national level.
Some factual corrections below for the record, in hopes that our public 
"dialogue" may prove educational for others.:

>>http://wsis.ecommons.ca ,
>
>I know there is a site, yes - but am being made aware now for the first 
>time that it's THE canadian civil society site. That, is news for me.

Hey all: a site of sites is a place where people list their own initiatives.
That is why on our site, using an open source platform, you may register, 
and add your own content.
The site is designed for many to use, and can play a useful coordinating 
role, and assist in the emergence of common views of Cdn civil, where 
possible.
This site is a kind of a launch pad, it is not a final destination.
The C2C wsis site is distinctive because it is the *only* specifically non 
governmental panCanadian site driven by the needs and interests of civil 
society, but inclusive of all.
That is all. Many other very very important sites exist, we try and connect 
them for the benefits of Canadians seeking information, and of civil 
society groups seeking attention for their messages and actions to 
implement the Action Plan.

>>You have been kept informed of this important C2C resource from the
>>outset.
>
>other that "there is a site" i haven't specifically been given details as 
>to it's direction, focus and mission.

Pls see the welcome message in both languages on the front page.
The future direction of this site will be determined by the groups who use it.
We have "civil rules" posted on the site, and have a focus on 
Canada-relevant information.
Beyond that, the direction can be set. That is why you and others are 
invited in, to shape the agenda.


>great for having recieved the funding from UNESCO.

We received $2,000 and that is all. We know of other groups who have 
received hundreds of thousands, and that is wonderful and needed.
Our efforts have been largely voluntary, building on our platform as 
creators of public space online to bridge digital divides (the mission 
since 1997-8 of the eCommons/agora project).

>But, I will point out that neither you, nor the ecommons group were 
>involved in the earlier WSIS rountables held by the commission.

This is inaccurate Robert.
I urge you to always check your facts.
I was present in Ottawa for the Round Table, and fully took part.
We had commented to CCfU before that.
Plus as i have said elsewhere my credentials at the international level 
predate the Wsis process. ( gee I wrote the background paper for the 
Beijing conference on Women in and behind media, 1995, which dates me :), 
and most directly relevant with the Council of Europe new information 
technologies for the next millennium 1999- 2001, and Vital Links for a 
Knowledge Culture: Public access to new information technologies, before Wsis)

>So, there was a space being created by the unesco sessions - and you, and 
>others have created discussion spaces to move that forward. that's wonderfull!

There are many spaces. The eCommons/agora project itself est. 1997 has been 
creating panCanadian spaces for dialogue and information exchange and 
working on access and closing digital divides for a very long time.

But Robert and list members: This is a point that makes this internal 
dialogue relevant to the larger Wsis CS: is it true that we wish to be 
exclusive now?
Does Robert have support in this position, in other words that even when 
people have been active for years (as have I), or when new people become 
interested, that they are somehow not welcome to take part in the next 
phase of Wsis? I reject this idea utterly.
It is my intention and that of eCommons/agora and our other associates to 
involve many more people in this process.
We reject exclusion. We want outreach, education, mobilization of those not 
yet part of the process. We have been doing this (we call it building a 
knowledge culture from below) for much longer than Wsis has existed. We 
will do it after Wsis concludes.
In fact we oppose the idea that only those who have been in Wsis all along 
are welcome to take part.
We think that all roles should be up for review.
In particular, I do not have confidence now in the ability of the North 
American focal points to adequately act in an inclusive manner.
I call for a regime change. Seriously now, this is not a permanent post, 
surely?



>I'll again disagree with you in regards to the GCN site - the conference 
>in oct 2002 did have a large canadian presence, and informal, formal and 
>electronic discussions have been taking place since then to further the 
>involvement of canadian civil society.

Robert, facts only here.
that site is not Canada specific.
It is a great site, we refer to it, and hope people will use it.
It is not the site that we have built.
This is where we certainly need diversity, but let's face facts here.

>But, the internet is vast, and perhaps the group in question wasn't large 
>enough to be though of the "only specific place" for discussions. but they 
>were there - and keeping them in mind, and collaborating with them would 
>serve us all.

We have tried but success has been quite limited, despite our efforts, and 
we will supply evidence off this list to prove this point.
Had there been more cooperation, we would not have needed to set up the 
wsis.ecommons.ca site.


>as key participants, they too should be involved . My personal view is 
>that without their engagement - we aren't truly representing canadian 
>civil society, but a segment. Thus, they too should be involved in any 
>initiative calling itself the "only site". as you can notice, i'm not 
>confortable with a site calling itself the only canadian resource.

Robert - we have always agreed.
In fact, we refer people to Taking IT Global.
But youth is only one segment of Canadian society, and the IS itself, and 
again (see above)
we stand for inclusiveness of all, and support inter generational dialogue 
as well as intercultural and inter linguistic.
Plus we have lots of youth members!



>>I am pleased to announce that we also have an email list that will
>>support these efforts.
>>Please subscribe at
>>http://lists.ecommons.net/mailman/listinfo/wsis-smsi
>>(List originated December 9, 2003, but we preferred to build up the
>>web site).
>
>
>thanks for telling me about it - news to me!

We did not wish to launch this until there was more to speak about.
The web site was important strategically we felt (and of course given 
limited resources we had to choose priorities, we are not paid for this 
eh?) to capture the key points - for instance you find official statements 
on the site, in both languages as soon as they became available, and links 
to important sites like the wsis civil society meeting place. We knew that 
people in Canada were not paying much attention last December (no media 
coverage, better things to do) so we knew that a more permanent web space 
where people could go and find what they wanted later at their own timing 
(not search through a hard to use ugly email list archive) would be a 
better use of time. That seems confirmed now, as last week in Toronto 
meeting (50 plus attendees, and 30 who want to be included in ongoing 
initiatives, most of whom came without having heard of wsis) allowed us to 
point people to the web site and its easy to use resource links. We and our 
web site are not the end of the road here, but the beginning. If people 
prefer to go work with GCN or Taking IT global that is wonderful, and we 
encourage it. We want no monopoly. But you need a focal space for newcomers 
and for old timers to the process (no matter their age).

>Industry canada had planned to launch a campaign in the spring of 2003. 
>However, it did not launch the initiative as planned - much to the dismay 
>of those who knew of the plan.

We are experts at this since 1998: our foreign policy dialogue won a 
national award for e government in the wsis awards.
www.foreign-policy-dialogue.ca
www.dialogue-politique-etrangere.ca

We asked to conduct this. We had been in touch.
The IC consultation was poorly organized and a miserable failure. Lots of 
money for consultants, far as I can tell, and no connections to the 
community nor knowledge of how to do this.
It did happen, anyway, and is online (three rats and a cat took part), and 
we hope that next time we as experts will be part of making a serious 
consultation work.

>The GCN website and the organization behind it also had plans for 
>expansion and outreach - however funds fromm Industry canada, cida, and 
>idrc failed to materialize.

For 2k, our group has done this initiative.
Go figure.
We think if you need to do something, you do it.
I hope when time comes, we will all try and get proper funding for the 
important initiatives, but we do not plan to sit around waiting.
eCommons/agora did outreach starting last spring (because no other Cdn 
group was trying to reach those who knew nothing about the process, so it 
looked to us. This will be very important ultimately, if we wish to have 
impact and not simply input.). We surveyed all the accredited groups for 
Wsis from Canada and asked their views.
None of them planned any outreach to Canadians.
We will have more to say on this and more to do.

>>- So the question becomes: what is the problem?
>>
The personal can become the political pretty fast it seems.
Nothing personal, but I did not in fact start this in a global forum, and 
now I will get on with the important work to be done.
I do however question the inclusiveness of the CS process from Geneva to 
Tunis, and regard this as a rather important point.
We cannot call for accountability as CS members, when we do not have our 
own legitimacy and accountability structures in place.
I did not think that a permanent structure had been set up.
I know for instance that I am a former CS member of the Cdn delegation to 
Wsis Geneva, as the delegation no longer exists, as the formal mechanism 
has been dissolved.
Is it not timely to examine some of our own structures in a similar light? 
I think so, and think this will help a more inclusive attitude to prevail.
Who needs another old boys and girls network? We do not. We need the wisdom 
and experience of those who were there, that is so important, but we also 
need to encourage fresh ideas, newcomers to the process, and to welcome 
them in not attack them for becoming part of the process. If I can be 
attacked, however totally erroneously, for somehow being a Jill-come-lately 
to this process, what tactics would be used against a well-meaning newcomer 
to the Wsis process?
We are all grateful for work done, and we know who did hard and good work. 
Bravo!
But this does not confer monopoly powers to act in the name of a CS that is 
still in formation.
Over and out salut!
Liss Jeffrey, PhD
Director eCommons/agora
http://wsis.ecommons.ca
http://smsi.agora-electronique.ca

www.ecommons.net
www.agora-electronique.net