[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Speaker nomination process [u]

[Gurstein, Michael]

Could I suggest, that since none of the other stakeholders are likely to be concerned, that as a matter of principle the CS representatives strongly emphasize a bottom-up and community based approach to all aspects of implementation.

Best,

MG

-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Kleinwächter
Sent: June 29, 2005 3:58 PM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Speaker nomination process [u]


I think it is important that speakers have a clear message, both to themes and to procedures. First we havwe to clarify what we want to communicate to the summit and the other stakeholders, and then we can discuss who is the most convincing person able to deliver the right message in a right tone. 
 
With regard to themes, I think we need statements for
* financing
* human capacity building
* integration of MDG goals and WSIS aims&principles
* IPR
* Internet Governance (both instiutional aspects as well as issue aspects)
* Gender
* freedom of expression
* community media
* privacy and data protection
* training & research (Divinas Declarration)
* etc.
 
With regard to procedures
* multistakeholderism (in general, conceptual aspects)
* follow up & implementation
* possibilities for formalization (an enhanced but simplified version of the convention idea)
 
And again, I say this as a member of the Bureau, the receommednations has to come from the Caucus and WGs. The CSB is for procedural aspects only. CSB has to fight for speaking slots, but not to decide about content related issues.
 
Best
 
wolfganbg
 
 

________________________________

Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra [c]
Gesendet: Mi 29.06.2005 14:39
An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Betreff: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Speaker nomination process [u]



I still think that after 2 years, it might be a good idea to revisit 
the names proposed in Geneva to see if in fact they are ok for the 
Tunis summit - or if we want to consider additional names.

The CSB is the body in charge of logistics, but as a bureau member 
i'm disappointed that no planning,  or discussion of any kind  is 
taking place on the bureau list. Personally i would prefer that needs 
be identified well in advance so that a discussion and agreement can 
be obtained on how the logistical needs - such as speakers, 
overpasses, etc - can be taken done.

You and others seem to propose that we just adopt the speakers 
suggested from the discussion 2 years ago, well that's definitely a 
possibility. Let's see what others have to say - and see if there's 
agreement. if so, fine we have a solution. If not, then let's see 
which additional names might come up. That's all I propose

regards,

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 29-Jun-05, at 8:11 AM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote:

>
> BTW : I do hope that the long serial we had do endure before the
> Geneva Summit for "speakers nominantions" will not happen again. I 
> know some among us who are already in the starting blocks for the 
> race for the desk ! Let's first debate on WHAT should be told to 
> the folks : this will eliminate a lot of candidates and our choice 
> will be largely facilitated. Our mailbox will appreciate it too.

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


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