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

[richard jordan]

Hi, Jeanette, Concerning a representative assembly of NGOs, there has for over 20 years been an active group of people from around the world who have been working on the concept of a 2nd Assembly of NGOs that would exist parallel to the UN General Assembly.

Most likely, in UN terms, there might eventually be some type of mechanism, such as a group of parliamentarians or local authorities, or even of spiritual leaders (probably very unlikely), but just to say that there are opinions contrary to what you state about representative structures, although you do qualify it with one possible example, that is, a parliament.

Richard Jordan
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, greve at fsfeurope.org
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] UN Official Document System is online
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:12:30 +0100

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary