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

[Dr. Francis MUGUET]

Dear Avri

Thanks for this very interesting reply that allows a constructive analysis.

> Hi,
>
> As one of those selected for the WGIG, 

You should be commended to speak on the issue.

> 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.

It is the people that has been selected as WGIG that should be 
condemned, but the internal CS WGIG nomination procedure.
The distinction is absolutely crucial

>
> - 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.

Very inclusive point of view that everyone is delighted to hear,  I am 
pretty sure.

>
> - 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.

This is quite interesting  that you consider all WGIG members as 
specialists.
I share indeed your point of view : all  WGIG members should be specialists.

> - 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.

This is correct but the connectors list was not presented as a list of 
persons
Let me repeat what was sent to Kummer :

"This process was not easy and resulted in two complementary sets of names.
First, a * limited slate of candidates for the WGIG itself* : "


"Second, based on the submissions from other Civil Society thematic 
caucuses,*
a list of "connectors"* has been established to facilitate interaction 
with various thematic
constituencies *as the process expands* to a broader range ofissues :"

Therefore the list of so-called connectors was not sent as candidates 
for the WGIG itself.
The fact that two people in the connectors lists were selected for the 
WGIG is certainly
not to be credited to the IG group but the great benevolance of  Kummer 
and the UN.

> It is clear to me

The reverse is clear,   the connector list was not sent to Kummer as  
candidates for the WGIG itself

> 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 numbers are speaking for themselves
Selection rate/ : main list : 89 %, connectors' list : 25 %

> - The composition of the WGIG was done very carefully by KA/MK to try 
> to achieve multistakeholder balance

This is true, Kummer did a great job in trying to get a 
multi-stakeholder balance considering the list that
has been sent to him and with whom he worked in good faith.
It would be incredible to take credit of the extremely valuable job 
done  by Kummer as a cover of  what
happenned in the IG group.
In fact, Kummer told me that he suggested to the IG co-coordinators that 
IG should consult  the other working
groups because of the complexity and variety of the issues at stake.
Therefore, the very nice and inclusive idea of consulting the other CS 
groups for candidates seems
to originate from Kummer.  I am saying "seems", because may be the IG 
co-coordinators had also the
same idea, and arguing about who got this inclusive idea first is not 
the topic of our discussion.
The current topic is how this inclusive idea of  consultation was 
implemented.

> while limiting the size of the group and I believe they made their 
> choices very much in harmony with Civil Society's procedural 
> recommendations. 

exactly

> 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 guess that some selected "connectors" have expressed a different 
opinion, but this is not the
point here in this message.

> - I do think the CS selection procedure was flawed in one sense,

At last, it is nice to hear this.

>   but I do _not_ think this flaw has anything to do with the people 
> who made the recommendations.  

this was a bad dream then...

> 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.

The IG group made a call to the other CS groups with all kinds of rules 
that were nicely written.
The IG co-coordinators must be commended for this job.
The IG group decided to nominate a NomCom to select the candidates.  I 
have nothing against this
procedure.   The selection mechanism seemed fine to everybody.
It is only after at the last moment that such a nice, clear and 
inclusive procedure
derailed completely when the never heard before "connector" concept was 
proposed and two lists were sent to Kummer.
It is not the selection mechanism which is to blame, but the way it was 
implemented.

But your statement has some truth, definitively the whole CS must check 
that selection meachanisms that affect
the whole CS must be agreed upon beforehand, and above all how they are 
implemented.

>   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,

This is the only excuse that I can imagine for this derailed procedure, 
that it was at wee hours.
I think it is what happenned.  It is not my goal to start a witch hunt, 
and to have some persons
be condemned.
I do not want to imagine that it is was a carefully crafted attempt to 
impose the
over-representation of a certain organization and/or a separatist 
regional group
 as some people have posted on this list and other lists.
What must be condemned is the fact that a procedure was not implemented 
as scheduled and clearly announced.
It is a moral condemnation of a procedure, not people.
Why I insist on this ?  It is not out of a vengeance or of settling 
personnal or political scores,
 it is because nomination  procedures (see my next msg ) are likely to 
happen  again, and
therefore  this problem should not happen again.

> when the selection procedure is decided on after nominees are named it 
> is open to hard feelings and condemnation.

No, the selection procedure was not decided after,  it was decided and 
announced before,
simply it was not implemented as scheduled.

>
> - 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 

indeed, it was dangerous for the Civil Society

> task of making selections in the absence of a pre-agreed procedure.

again, the procedures were clearly stated, the implementation went wrong.

> It is rather the time to decide on procedures for the future so that 
> this does not happen again.

This, I fully agree, and this why I spent some time on this, after I saw 
the heated discussion on the
plenary and the self-congratulary note of a NomCom member on the IG list.
The malaise was running deep and therefore it has to be  healed, 
otherwise we are going
to start the PrepCom2 under very bad auspices.

>   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 fully agree except that I would say that we are not arguing about the 
past but instead learning from it.
As it has been said :

Future belongs to those who have the longest memory. (Nietzsche)_

Kind regards

Francis

> a.



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


-- 

------------------------------------------------------ 
Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D 

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
Associate Publisher
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

ENSTA   Paris, France
KNIS lab.  Director 
"Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS)
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web

UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org
------------------------------------------------------