[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: Communiqué de Presse de la Société Civile

[Rik Panganiban]

Ralf, et al,

I will take some responsibility for the Press Release as it was 
drafted.  Adina took on the difficult job of pulling together what 
input she received verbally and via email on Thursday and Friday, and 
worked hard to integrate it into a single, short press statement over 
the weekend.  I received an early draft of it and should have alerted 
her to the problematic nature of drafting and getting approval for a 
"civil society press release."  Instead I just word-smithed the draft 
and sent it back to her.

In retrospect, the most transparent and inclusive way this could have 
gone out was for it to either be simply a compilation of quotes from 
various sources, i.e.
	-  According to Ralf Bendrath of Boell Foundation, "This Prepcom was 
crap!."
	- Anne-Marie on behalf of the Women's Caucus noted that "This was a 
complete waste of time!"
	- Rikke of the Human Rights Caucus expressed her disatisfaction that 
"our views were ignored" etc.

And then have links to complete statements somewhere else on the web. 
Other coalitions and networks that I have been involved with have 
compiled press releases in this fashion.  This neatly avoids the need 
to summarize the "view of civil society," which is kind of impossible.

Otherwise this should have gone out simply as a press release on behalf 
of the CS "secretariat" of CONGO / ICV / NGLS -- full stop.

My apologies for adding to any breakdown of our processes and trust.

Rik Panganiban
CONGO

On Mar 3, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I am also not happy about the press release, neither on the content 
> nor on the procedural side.
>
> Renata Bloem schrieb:
>> This was not a statement of CONGO.
> But CONGO wrote it, refined it and sent it out, without any 
> consultation with the plenary or whomever. Right? Given the fact that 
> the final Content & Themes meeting where we collected points for Adina 
> to include was on Friday evening, and the press release only was 
> published on Wednesday, there would have been enough time to send out 
> a first draft for further confirmation. That's how we did it before, 
> like at PrepCom3a when I wrote the final CS press statement.
>
> > In fact we have not submitted a single sentence to it.
> But who wrote it then? The press release does not at all reflect the 
> general discussion we had on the state of the process etc.
>
>  "Despite some concerns about WSIS “losing its vision” and “moving away
>  from the Geneva Declaration track”, civil society entities were
>  generally satisfied with the response by governments to their efforts 
> in
>  making the peoples’ voices heard in “bridging the digital divide”."
>
> Here I fully agree with Jean-Louis: We (any especially the folks who 
> worked hard on financing issues at the Prepcom) are certainly not 
> "satisfied with the response by governments". Quite the opposite.
>
>> Adina was asked to make an amalgam of the submissions she had 
>> received. and in order to avoid any misunderstanding / possible 
>> conflicts she decided not to refer to any specific entity / group / 
>> caucus, but to use more a general language
> That is fine, as long as the submissions are still somewhere 
> incorporated.
>
> BUT: I find no single sentence on Human Rights here, though the Human 
> Rights Caucus had sumbitted language. Nothing on the lack of a Human 
> Rights focus in the summit drafts, nothing on Tunisia as the host 
> country, nothing on accreditation problems of NGOs like Human Rights 
> in China. But then it mentions accreditation problems in WIPO. Why?
>
> And most of the press release is applauding the improvements in the 
> multi-stakeholder process. But were there really any? We had our usual 
> 15 minutes a day like we had two years ago. On the last day we did not 
> even get these. The improvement is only on the substance side: They 
> listen to us, because they either have no clue and need our input, or 
> they have learned to take us serious. So, if we want to applaud 
> anybody for the bigger impact we might have had during this PrepCom, 
> it should be ourselves. BTW: Empirical research done on WSIS phase one 
> suggests that CS impact is bigger in the early stages and gets smaller 
> and smaller towards the end, when all that counts is the government's 
> agreement.
>
> So, to me, this press release looks like somebody (if not CONGO, then 
> who else?) wants to play extremely nice and by doing this is silencing 
> all more outspoken and critical voices in civil society. Fine with me 
> if some groups want to do this, but then they can't claim to speak for 
> all civil society.
>
> I totally agree with Renata: We are lacking a clear press structure 
> and really should work on it for PrepCom3.
>
> But while we don't have an agreed structure, things like these have to 
> be done the most careful and inclusive way. And that normally includes 
> a feedback loop on the plenary list, even more if there are a few days 
> of time. Otherwise, we get a PR disaster like this and enlarge the 
> divides between different groups of civil society in the WSIS.
>
> Ralf
>
>
===============================================
RIK PANGANIBAN       Communications Coordinator
Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations 
(CONGO)
web: http://www.ngocongo.org
email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org
mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5350 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050304/874651d5/attachment.bin