[WSIS CS-Plenary] What's going on ? "CS" Press release and "CS"-Private sector joint statement

Fri Mar 4 22:31:17 GMT 2005

I fully suport your suggestion, Lisa, and thank you for mailing it to the CS plenary 
Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT


> Message du 04/03/05 17:32
> De : "lisa mclaughlin" 
> A : plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] What's going on ? "CS" Press release and "CS"-Private sector joint statement
> 
> If the supposed "joint statement" of CS and the 
> PS is allowed to remain on the ITU web site, let 
> me suggest the following:
> 
> 1. that those of us who do not wish to be 
> bedfellows with the CCBI write our own statement 
> disassociating ourselves from the "joint 
> statement"
> 
> 2. that we circulate it for individual endorsements
> 
> 3. and that we insist that it be included amongst 
> the documents submitted by Observers.
> 
> As well, perhaps it is time to do some CS 
> stocktaking instead of taking part in an ITU 
> exercise that seems to suffer amnesia in respect 
> to the fact that CS did not endorse the official 
> Declaration or Plan of Action.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Lisa
> 
> 
> 
> At 7:17 PM +0100 3/3/05, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
> >Dear all,
> >
> >1/ I fully support the concerns on the "CS" 
> >press release raised by Ralf hereafter, and 
> >previously by Jean-Louis and Rikke.
> >
> >2/ I've found on ITU web site, in the list of 
> >documents submitted by Observers, a document 
> >called "25 February 2005 - Observers (Business 
> >Sector and Civil Society): Joint statement on 
> >behalf of Civil Society Plenary and the 
> >Coordination Committee of Business 
> >Interlocutors" 
> >(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc2/subcommittee/Jointcs-ccbi.html).
> >There have been concerns raised on this plenary 
> >list by organizations who asked for individual 
> >endorsements by organizations, rather than 
> >attributing this statement to CS as a whole.
> >Who took the responsability to submit it to ITU 
> >secretariat to have it on the website, thus 
> >ignoring the plenary ?
> >
> >It is too late to withdraw the "CS" press 
> >release, since no one from CS had the 
> >opportunity to comment on a draft.
> >But it is still time to ask for the so-called 
> >"Joint statement on behalf of Civil Society 
> >Plenary and the Coordination Committee of 
> >Business Interlocutors" to be removed from ITU 
> >website, and that its promoters look for 
> >endorsements by individual organizations.
> >
> >I'm really wondering what's going on with CS at WSIS II...
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Meryem Marzouki
> >--
> >Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org
> >IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire
> >294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris
> >Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239
> >
> >Le jeudi, 3 mars 2005, à 18:09 Europe/Paris, Ralf Bendrath a écrit :
> >
> >>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
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20050304/0bda119d/attachment.htm