[WSIS CS-Plenary] UN at odds over internet's future
Bertrand de La Chapelle
bdelachapelle at gmail.com
Wed Jul 20 11:43:51 BST 2005
Cher Jean-Louis, (english below)
Il y a clairement des choses à critiquer sur le fonctionnement ou les
résultats du WGIG.
Personnellement, je vois au moins trois aspects :
- les mécanismes insuffisants de communication durant la phase de travail
entre les membres à l'intérieur et ceux qui étaient à l'extérieur
- le caractère pas assez itératif des rédactions
- le manque de précision sur les roles et responsabilités des différents
acteurs.
Il y en a surement d'autres et je ne parle pas de la substance, seulement
du process. Mais globalement, je persiste à penser qu'à ce jour, le WGIG a
été, au sein du WSIS, ce qui va le plus dans la direction de ce que l'on
peut souhaiter :
- en temes de participation et de modalités de représentation
- en termes de procédures de concertation et de méthodes de travail
- en termes de substance même
Ce n'est pas assez, on est bien d'accord. Mais l'enjeu est de continuer
dans cette direction et de pousser plus loin; pas de revenir sur les
quelques avancées qui ont pu être obtenues. Les gouvernements qui ne veulent
pas de la société civile s'en chargeront tout seuls...
Je dirai cela, le défendrai sans relâche et sans hésitation, jusqu'à ce que
quelqu'un présente des arguments convaincants sur le possible dommage que ce
processus pourrait avoit apporté à la société civile ou à ses membres. Et je
suis ouvert à ce débat.
By the way, je saisis l'occasion pour te demander, compte tenu de tes
commentaires souvent forts sur l'expression multi-stakeholder :
1 - quels sont précisément les raisons (de principe ou pratiques) de tes
réticences sur ce concept ?
2 - quelle est la formule d'association de la société civile aux processus
futurs que tu soouhaiterais ?
Je demande ça sincèrement. Je n'ai pas de fixation particulière sur le mot.
Amicalement
Bertrand
Dear Jean-Louis,
There are clearly things to criticize about the operation or the results of
the WGIG.
Personally, I see at least three aspects:
- insufficient mechanisms of communication during the phase of work between
the members inside and those which were outside
- character not iterative enough of the draftings
- lack of precision on the roles and responsibilities for the various
actors.
There are surely other limitations and I do not even speak about the
substance, only of the process. But overall, I persist in thinking that to
date, the WGIG was, within the WSIS, what goes most in the direction of what
we can wish:
- in temes of participation and methods of representation
- in terms of working method and conciliation procedures
- in terms of substance even
It is not enough, I agree. But the objective is to continue in this
direction and to push further; not to turn our back on the few improvements
that have been obtained. Governments which do not want civil society will do
that enough...
I will say it, will defend it without slackening and hesitation, until
somebody presents convincing arguments on the possible damage that this
process could have brought to the civil society or to its members. And I am
open to have this debate.
The main benefit for me is the broader use of the word multi-stakeholder. By
the way, given your often strong comments on the expression
multi-stakeholder, I seized the occasion to ask you :
1 - which are the reasons precisely (of principle or practical) of your
reservations on this concept ?
2 - how would you see the mechanisms for association of civil society to the
future processes ?
I ask that sincerely. I do not have particular fixing on the word. Works for
me but I have more interest in the actual processes that in the way they are
labeled.
Friendly
Bertrand
On 7/19/05, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear Bertrand
>
> I want you just to tell us your understanding about this "positive
> outcome".
>
> I wonder if a large part of the CS considers the WGIG outcomes as really
> positive, at least at its current state.
>
> BTW : I'll attend the WGIG "open meeting" scheduled to-morrow morning at
> Palais des Nations and hope to see you.
>
> Friendly
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> CSDPTT.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Message du 19/07/05 16:34
> > De : "Bertrand de La Chapelle"
> > A : plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] UN at odds over internet's future
> >
> > The other approach from the press is basically the UN versus US battle.
> Unfortunately this only reflects the fact that the group did not devote
> attention to the framing of its public presentation but left the press to
> define its own understanding from the document itself. No doubt they went to
> the simplistic presentation.
> I'm afraid the opportunity has been missed to emphqsize the originality
> of the group, the approach it took and how it considers its report as a
> positive outcome.
> Bertrand
> >
> >
> On 7/19/05, Jacqueline Morris <jacqueline.morris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
> > list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
> > people. Your cooperation is highly appreciated]
> > > _______________________________________
> > >
> > > Interesting - as a member of the WGIG I thought that group consensus
> > > since February on providing multiple options in the report to the
> > > Prepcom to negotiate with was reaching an agreement.... obviously I
> > > misunderstood the meaning of the word "agreement"! Seems the only
> > > meaning for "agreement" is to have only one option available.
> > > Jacqueline Morris
> > >
> > > On 7/18/05, Robert Guerra < rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire
> > list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
> > people. Your cooperation is highly appreciated]
> > > > _______________________________________
> > > >
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4692743.stm
> > > >
> > > > A UN group charged with deciding how the net should be run has
> > failed
> > > > to reach a decision.
> > > > The group's report suggests four possible futures for net governance
> > > > that range from no change to complete overhaul.
> > > > The proposals will go forward to a key UN net and society conference
> >
> > > > due to take place in November.
> > > >
> > > > The report comes as the US says it plans to keep its role as
> > overseer
> > > > of the net's core administrative body.
> > > >
> > > > [snipped]
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
> > > > Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Plenary mailing list
> > > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ______________________
> > > Jacqueline Morris
> > > www.carnivalondenet.com <http://www.carnivalondenet.com/>
> > > T&T Music and videos online
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Plenary mailing list
> > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
> > >
>
>
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050720/3d291b93/attachment.html
More information about the Plenary
mailing list