[WSIS CS-Plenary] UN Official Document System is online

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Georg,

> I am quite surprised that you seem to question this as that would also
> mean that the internet governance caucus is also not representative
> for civil society on internet governance issues and therefore all
> Civil Society participants in the WGIG would lose their
> representativity on any issue.

I am surprised that you are surprised. The fact that none of the working 
groups and caucuses can claim to represent civil society has been one 
the basic assumptions shaping the selection process. How could any of 
the CS groups involved in WSIS claim to represent or speak for other CS 
people not actively involved? In a transnatinal setting the concept of 
representativeness doesn't work to begin with. Likewise, civil society 
cannot form representative structures in the sense a parliament may 
represent the people.  The only thing civil society groups can and 
should strive for are legitimate procedures.

> 
> In short: if you question that structure as you seem to have done, you
> make the statement that Civil Society is not represented in the WGIG,
> at all, only some people are there for personal entertainment.

I don't think 'personal entertainment' is a necessary alternative to 
representation. We had put together a list of competences and features 
we wanted to see involved in WGIG. The call for nomination talks about 
"diversity", representativity:

"We consider it critical that a balanced WGIG be drawn from a multi 
dimensional consideration of diversity.  That is, diversity in terms of 
sector, region, gender, and language background, among others, must be 
considered in assembling the WGIG.  It is also important that there be a 
balance between members from developing and developed countries.  It is 
also considered very important that candidates have a degree of 
knowledge of the issues, including policy, legal and technical, involved 
in the Internet governance debate. We also suggest candidates should 
have experience working in an international committee environment, be 
aware of ICT for development issues and human rights. No candidate is 
expected to have all these qualities, but we are suggesting they should 
be people with broad experience.

It is considered critical that though all participants come from 
different perspectives, they should be people who are willing to listen 
and consider carefully the views of others.  It is expected that the 
best outcome for the WGIG will come from an assembly of open minded 
individuals who can share their knowledge and expertise in an 
cooperative manner."

jeanette

> 
> I believe that would be a rather unwise position to take.
> 
> 
>  >> That seems to coincide with the strategy of Mr. Kummer, who also
>  >> deliberately removed the thematic area of PCTs from the UN WGIG
>  >> when it was set up, although it was found on the list of issues
>  >> earlier.
> 
>  vb> Uhm... I can tell you that PCT is still on the list, 
> 
> That is really most interesting, as the last information that reached
> the PCT working group about this was
> 
>  http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/2004-November/000653.html
> 
> although you said in
> 
>  http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/2004-November/000667.html
>  
> that you would push hard for PCTs to be put on the list of items.
> 
> So -- lacking any other information -- the PCT working group still
> assumed that its issues were not among the topics discussed.
> 
> 
>  vb> otherwise I wouldn't be working on a draft right now.
> 
> Given that the PCT group did not even have knowledge of these issues
> being part of the agenda, that is most disturbing, actually. Have you
> self-appointed yourself as representative of Civil Society on these
> issues now?
> 
> 
>  vb> If I'm not wrong, the idea of "connectors" was introduced
>  vb> especially because there was not enough room to let all CS groups
>  vb> be represented directly in the WGIG, so there should be people
>  vb> officially tasked with keeping communications.
> 
> There was certainly limited room. But unless there was no more than
> one representative of any single group in the WGIG and another group
> also should have been included, that is a non-argument.
> 
> As it stands, the Internet Governance Caucus has five representatives
> in the WGIG and the PCT working group has none -- just like any other
> thematic working group.
> 
> 
> As Francis rightly pointed out in some mail, it makes little sense to
> contribute from the outside, you have to be at the table in order to
> react directly to what was said. So the concept of connectors would
> only have made sense if they were actually part of the WGIG.
> 
> Besides -- you have already proven that the idea of connectors does
> not work as I am the connector on PCT issues for Civil Society into
> the WGIG: And I neither knew that PCT issues were back on the agenda,
> nor did I know that any input on the issue was needed so I could work
> together with the PCT working group to facilitate that input.
> 
> 
> The essential fact remains: Civil Society is not represented on the
> Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks (PCT) and Free Software issues
> within the UN WGIG.
> 
> Regards,
> Georg
>