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

[veni markovski]

At 11:18 21-01-2005 -0500, Avri wrote:
>Hi,
>
>
>- 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.

I agree fully.
One of the reasons why we're not quite active in this forum is precisely 
that. The great spirit from the first WSIS and PrepComs was lost somewhere 
in cyberspace on the road to the next PrepCom in Geneva in February.

I'd say that this is partly due to the personal agendas of some of the 
participants, which had priority upon the interests of the CS caucus. And 
no, please, don't ask me who are those participants. I prefer to open a 
discussion on the state of the CS within WSIS than waste time on individuals.

I propose that we stop focusing on the WGIG - it's not normal that we 
discuss in January 2005 how it was formed!?!? We have to help WGIG by all 
means we have! Their work is important for the whole Internet community, as 
so far no one has been dealing on such a level with spam, cybercrime, 
access to information, control over ISPs, etc., etc.

As for the CS Bureau,
let me remind you also that it was created with totally different aim; the 
fact that now it's meeting wherever, shows that slowly and surely it has 
become (or tries to become) a powerful tool. Perhaps some people were aware 
of this bureacratic process, and have joined it at some stage, when they 
realized this power?

In anycase, I've been upset by the fact that in our work as CS, it turned 
out that tolerance does not seem to exist. The fact that whoever was 
stronger (louder) prevailed makes me worry if the whole idea of the CSB is 
not so good as it seemed back in Geneva, when we were forming the Bureau. 
Just a short memory from then - I volunteered to organize the North America 
- Europe family (caucus). There were NO candidates to join this family 
during the first 3 days. Only on the fourth day Hans Klein showed up, 
together with some other 3-4 people, and this is how the NA-Europe caucus 
was formed, and he became representative to the CSB from NA, and I - from 
Europe.

Now, on one hand - why do people complain today, if they could have 
participated yesterday, but they did not?

Come on, let's concentrate on today and tomorrow, not on yesterday. If you 
want to make a difference, you have to be sure you contribute, and not ruin.

best,
veni