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

Sat Jan 22 15:23:19 GMT 2005

Veni:

I was thinking of responding to you - privately - to express my 
thoughts, agreements, and disagreements on your recent message.

I am keen to hear your points and the specific concerns that you have.

At 10:15 AM +0200 1/22/05, veni markovski wrote:
>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 will agree with you that the first phase, and in particular the 
first precom was quite different. In fact i'd go further and say that 
the physical meetings are quite different, in a way more productive 
that the road in between here in cyberspace.

this is due to many reasons.  Personally i think that physical 
meetings give people the opportunity to be better informed and the 
meetings tend to be moderated and/or facilitated. That facilitation 
just does not occur on this list - and as such anyone with a 
particular agenda, crazy idea, or just spam - can just put it forward 
and we are all forced to endure it.

This does not happen on other lists where discussion is more focused 
around  a particular topic and/or  subject area. The youth caucus 
list, as well as the recently created Working Methods Working Group 
list is an example - there people are keen to get things discussed, 
reach consensus and move forward.

My take on what happens here is that due to the lack of facilitation 
the space has become more of a shouting match and a lurkers paradise. 
I say lurkers paradise, as there are far more people listening 
passively than saying anything. Their silence is worrisome, as are 
the desperate pleas people have on occasion to leave the list when 
the virtual battles break out .

>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 would agree that part of the reason that the discussion has failed 
to be productive on here is the reason you state. We should perhaps 
think why is it that it happens in this space and not in the physical 
face to face meetings.

Given what happened at the last precom you'd think this space would 
have shifted to french and arabic and be discussing Tunisian issues. 
Instead, since june of last year the vast majority of discussion has 
been around  free software and the politics around that. it has 
consumed far too much of the discussion and there hasn't been any way 
to start other threads, other discussions on items that are also 
important in the UN context.

One also has to recognize that we all come into the WSIS process with 
our own agendas and  our own objectives . One always has to take this 
into consideration.

>I propose that we stop focusing on the WGIG - it's not normal that 
>we discuss in January 2005 how it was formed!?!?

Agree 100% enough said.

>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.

Agree 100%

>As for the CS Bureau,

interested to hear your comments..

>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?

Agendas are at play in the bureau as well. To what extent it stays to 
it's original solely logistical mandate or tries to expand it ever so 
slowly to be more political will  balance between the personal agenda 
of those involved and the  force of the CS and the plenary to keep 
things in check

As you may know, I am on the bureau and have many issues with how it 
seems to be evolving. I have repeatedly called for greater 
transparency, accountability, openness and a narrow well defined 
focus as was originally specified when the bureau was created in Feb 
03. I have not been alone in the bureau in expressing concern - Sean 
and many others  have in the past and continue to this day  to 
express grave concerns about its legitimacy.

Instead of keeping quiet i have raised the issues both in the 
physical meetings and also online (on this list and on the bureau 
one) in this regard. Many of my questions have gone unanswered - this 
is most worrisome.

An example, the blog entry which I posted both here and on the 
(publicly accessible) bureau list has gone without any reply or 
comment. it would have been great to have heard your comments when I 
posted the note.

http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/csb_thoughts.html
CSB Mailing list archive (which is public) can be accessed at the 
following address:
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/bureau/

note: If you go through this month's posts you'll see that i'm an 
active poster and have many concerns that a. have been expressed, and 
b. are without reply from others.

A specific issue raised at the Cape Town meeting which is likely to 
be problematic is the one of representation of the bureau in outside 
spaces. Some raised the idea that a figurehead, a person with 
political responsibilities be defined. This proposal was - VERY 
controversial as it was seen as a significant and clear shift away 
from the purely logistical mandate the bureau should and must follow.

Those wanting to develop the political aspect insured that the 
proposal would be discussed and elaborated on-line.  Despite repeated 
requests and ample time since the Cape Town meeting this past 
December - such a discussion has not occurred.

The proposal seems to me to be a specific agenda being put forward by 
a set of actors. It should be known by all and discussed. That people 
don't want to discuss it means either they agree with the proposal, 
or frankly don't care.

>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.

In certain cases the loud voices did prevail, but not always.

>Just a short memory from then - I volunteered to organize the North 
>America - Europe family (caucus).

there were several of us there. If i recall there was about 10-12 
persons in the room when we met at the ILO building in Feb 03

>There were NO candidates to join this family during the first 3 days.

let's shine more detail on the meeting in question you are referring to...

People did put names forward. I was one of the persons who was 
suggested as the CSB focal point. Given my status at that time as a 
civil society advisor to the official Canadian Government delegation 
I suggested that the position go to CPSR as an organization. This was 
agreed to, and you and Hans (as CPSR delegates may i add) agreed to 
attend and represent both the caucus and the organization at the 
bureau meetings. If I recall well - I also mentioned that I would be 
willing to assume the responsibility when my involvement with the 
Canadian government delegation was concluded.

Note: My accepting to be a member of the official Canadian Government 
delegation required me to sign an agreement which committed me to be 
bound by certain limitations, and non disclosure requirements. One of 
the clauses of the agreement required me to seek approval of the head 
of delegation before being involved in any processes inside the WSIS. 
Such approval was not given and I was requested to refrain until 
after  PrepCom 2 to participate.

>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.

As I mentioned above - there were more persons there. I was there. I 
don't remember the distinction being made at the time between NA & 
Europe as the Focal point position at the time - and still - is to 
represent the North American and European Group. This mirrors the UN 
WEOG group.

At  Precom 3 i came to the CSB meeting as an observe and neither Hans 
nor you showed up to represent the caucus. Given CPSR as an 
organization had been given the position, and seeing i was at the 
event in that capacity - i went ahead and moved from observer to 
occupying the CPSR chair.

I could go on - but don't think it's effective. All I have to do is 
ask you - if you want to be involved on the WSIS CSB again? If so, 
let me know.

Other than PrepCom 1 (first phase), I have attended the WSIS meetings 
at my own personal expense. Compared to the other actors involved - I 
can honestly say that my agenda is one of transparency and just 
getting things done.

Other actors definitely have other agendas and that is to be expected.

>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.

I agree that we should try to be forward looking, proactive and 
engaged and remember that WSIS is a UN process. it's not a shouting 
match, a protest meeting - but an international meeting where the 
formal and informal rules of diplomacy apply.

For CS to be effective, it has to be strategic. Claudia Padovani has 
put forward some ideas as to how to proceed , i ask others to do the 
same.

As for me, I will state that between now and the PrepCom my focus 
will be one specific CS issues, and  preparation  and strategy for 
the precom. I would ask others to state their intention and focus as 
well.

regards

Robert

-- 
###
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org>