Need to know the facts / Les Faits Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] PCT and WGIG

[avri at acm.org]

Hi,

As one of those selected for the WGIG, I would like to contribute a few 
remarks to this discussion.  I do this with a certain amount of 
trepidation,  but I do feel that those who disagree with the most vocal 
position at this point should not sit silently by as good people are 
condemned.

- I do not consider myself as speaking in any way for Civil Society.  I 
am, however, beholden to Civil Society and consider it incumbent on me 
to take Civil Society, in its myriad manifestations, into account in 
expressing the views I do express during the WGIG process.

- To go further, within the WGIG, no one represents anyone, including 
those who are diplomats and members of a national delegation.  One of 
the reasons put forward for some degree of closed meeting and for the 
non-attribution rules (so called Chatham House rules) is to allow all 
WGIG members, to speak freely as specialists without fear of 
repercussion from their governments or employers.

- The decision on membership _was made_ by Kofi Annan, as recommended 
by Marcus Kummer.  There has been an implication in this discussion 
thread that they accepted the list proposed as a result of CS decision 
procedure without further consideration.  Yet, if one inspects the 2 
lists suggested by CS, of suggested members and of connectors, one can 
see that 2 of the WGIG members were selected from the connectors list.  
It is clear to me that KA/MK took the combined list into account when 
creating the WG and felt free to pick as many people from the connector 
list as they wished. As the connector list included people recommended 
from the thematic groups, my assumption is that all areas had full 
consideration in the process KA/MK used to create the WG.

- The composition of the WGIG was done very carefully by KA/MK to try 
to achieve multistakeholder balance while limiting the size of the 
group and I believe they made their choices very much in harmony with 
Civil Society's procedural recommendations. I believe that for any 
pertinent specialty, one can go down the WGIG list and find someone 
with knowledge of that specialty in the WGIG.  The person many not come 
from any particular stakeholder segment; i.e. may originate from the 
diplomatic field instead of civil society, or may be female instead of 
male but the skill set will be represented.  I think one will also find 
that most of the members have multiple areas of knowledge.

- I do think the CS selection procedure was flawed in one sense,  but I 
do _not_ think this flaw has anything to do with the people who made 
the recommendations.  The flaw belong to CS in general in that we in CS 
were unable to decide on a full selection mechanism before nominees 
were named.  From my experience this is always a recipe for 
repercussions.  No matter how careful a group is, and I believe that 
this group was as careful as possible given the press of deadlines, 
when the selection procedure is decided on after nominees are named it 
is open to hard feelings and condemnation.

- What I think is most important is that now is not a time for 
aspersions or condemnation of the people who took on the difficult and 
dangerous task of making selections in the absence of a pre-agreed 
procedure.  It is rather the time to decide on procedures for the 
future so that this does not happen again.  For several months before 
the deadline, CS was unable to decide on a method of selection, though 
many suggestions were made.  With the upcoming PrepCom we are again at 
risk of not having a method of selection, in this case for our 
meetings, and risk repercussions.  I am concerned that we are spending 
all of our energy arguing about the past instead of working to make 
sure that we learn for the future.

a.