[WSIS CS-Plenary] PCT and WGIG

[Taran Rampersad]

Beatriz Busaniche wrote:

>El lun, 17-01-2005 a las 20:39 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann escribió:
>  
>
>Over the last few days, I have received private e-mails of support from
>several people who seem not to know each other, telling me that the IG
>caucus didn't send all the topical caucus' nominations to Kummer, but
>rather one-sidedly put them under the "connector" label, and that the
>only formal candidates for the WGIG came from the IG caucus, LAC (not
>the official, but the closed one), and arab caucus.
>  
>
Umm. I'm a part of the LAC. And the reason that the LAC probably got
formal candidates in is because they presented them in a manner which
suits the system. I had no hand in that process, but I do know the
people involved. There is a reason that the 'Closed LAC' exists, and a
lot of it has to do with perceptions that are not being helped with
side-swipes.

However, I have gotten a few emails offlist, and there is concern about
the WGIG selection. Unfortunately, until people speak up in a public
fashion, there can be nothing said or done about it - so it's
meaningless sending me these emails. Send them to the list instead. I
expect Beatriz has given the same advice.

>What is surprising and sad about these e-mails is that these people seem
>not to dare express their view in public, and honestly, judging from the
>public response we have gotten from some members of this list, trying to
>discredit the PCT caucus candidates as extremist loons for example, I
>can't say that I blame them.
>  
>
I think the PCT caucus has done fairly well, actually, and I don't see
how adding another name ('extremist loon'?!) helps matters for the PCT
caucus. I'd have to say extremist was one point made by a few people,
but not the 'loon' part. Of course, that could be seen as Canadian
extremists as well. A loon is a duck by another name. I digress.

>I would like this discussion to end, too. But I think that saying that
>the *discussion* is destructive, is misleading. It's the make-believe
>democratic process through which the WGIG was selected that is
>destructive. It's the bait-and-switch operation of first taking PCT
>issues out of the agenda, then bringing them back. It's the lack of
>ability for self-criticism of the people involved in the process that is
>destructive. It's the unprovoked name-calling that is destructive.
>  
>
There really hasn't been serious discussion. There was some apparent
segues that kept things from being said outright. Further, the only
caucus that has really taken this to task has been the PCT. If there are
other caucuses that share these concerns, it would certainly be
constructive for discussion if the emails sent were to the list instead
of to private parties.

>We started this process as a diverse group of motivated allies trying to
>help shape WSIS in a way that would be good for the people, not just
>corporations and governments. Yet over the last few years, we have
>managed to create an invisible power structure that intimidates
>participants and effectively suppresses dissens, all the while
>preserving the illusion of participatory, egalitarian cooperation.
>Watching this mess all around me, I can't help it feeling ashamed for
>all of us. 
>  
>
You should really see this from where I'm sitting. I've come in late to
see... this. This is a 'Your NGO is invited but your friend can't come'
sort of thing. There's little transparency outside of the WSIS process,
much less (apparently) within the process.

The credibility of the WSIS is certainly at stake. The people being
represented don't need castles in the sky, they need concrete on the ground.

>So maybe we should just stop this discussion dead on its track. But if
>we do, if we just let things like this happen... what exactly are we
>here for?
>  
>
Of late, I think that this is the question that is disturbing me the most.

What's also quite disturbing is the lack of discussion so far regarding
Robert Guerra's comments on weblogs and such - which is something Free
Software excels at. Perhaps it is time for *everyone* to be a bit more
transparent (and yes, I include the closed LAC caucus with that), and
that's something I can say with deferential equality. For my part, I've
seen little transparency from anyone, and also a lack of communication
with the general public at all levels.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo