[WSIS CS-Plenary] "CS" Press release and CS-Private sector
common statement
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sat Mar 5 12:18:15 GMT 2005
I was hoping enough had been said about the
Internet governance caucus in Geneva, that the
allegations made towards the end of prepcom2 had
been shown to be exaggerated and unfair. Seems I
was wrong.
With apologies for this long note in English, but
too much has been said that needs to be corrected.
>
>I also remember the memorable interventions by
>J.Y. Park at the Wednesday 23 CS C&T meeting,
>about the CS contributions inside the WGIG and
>IG Causus lacking some basic CS concerns such as
>i.a. Human rights and gender issues.
The statement produced by the Internet governance
caucus, read at the Content & Themes meeting on
Wednesday 23rd included contributions by the
gender caucus. To the best of my knowledge the
gender caucus supported the statement.
Members of the Human Rights caucus spent some
hours during the afternoon of the 23rd helping to
draft the statement. Perhaps people who were in
Geneva will remember we asked in Content & Themes
meeting and in CS Plenary for help in drafting?
It was an open call for people to participate.
To the best of my knowledge the human rights
caucus supported the statement. I know the human
rights caucus had concerns about the statement's
support for "multi-stakeholder" and their
acceptance of that language was very much
appreciated. In my opinion, the representatives
of that caucus are rather exceptional people.
>She had to face rather hostile people especially
>members of the Internet gouvernance Caucus or of
>the WGIG itself.
As I stated at the plenary meeting on Friday 24 and on the plenary list:
At 6:07 PM +0900 2/25/05, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>I made a very general statement in Plenary this
>morning saying that the Internet governance
>caucus is open (open list, open archives, open
>membership, open meetings.) We welcome all
>issues and have not, to the best of my
>knowledge, ever refused to listen to any
>person's opinion. We welcome contributions from
>anyone from civil society.
>
>I believe this to be true.
>
Please also see
<http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/2005-February/004853.html>
and archives of the Internet governance caucus
<http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/>
(try 2005 February after the 23rd.)
>For me the outcome of this distorted mini-debate is still not clear,
Then, with respect, please don't make unfounded allegations.
>and an actual and open debate on this topic of
>paramount importance has to take place as soon
>as possible in the CS plenary, virtual or real,
>i.e. before July when the Report is due to be
>handed over to the SMSI Secretariat. I stress
>that we as CS don’t only need experts in
>Internet technical and management issues, but
>also people who are really aware of some most
>important cross-cutting themes and issues such
>as those mentioned above.
There's a description below of the process we
followed in Geneva to develop a statement that we
hoped could be supported by the Content & Themes
meeting. We made a point of trying to include
all caucuses in the discussion.
Jean-Louis, you were at these meetings, wasn't that obvious?
>BTW, some of CS members involved in these IG
>working groups and lobbies are also
>professionals in this sector and therefore may
>have some personal interests ? This reminds me
>also the “CS-Private Sector joint statement”
.
>So, please, beware of publishing “CS statements”
>of any format on Internet gouvernance (and other
>sensitive/important topics such as CS-PS common
>statements), without a clear and open debate
>inside the relevant caucuses and with an
>appropriate information given to the CS
>organisations and members.
Again, see process description below, and again
note that the Internet governance caucus is open
to all. Can you name a caucus that has done more
to be as or more inclusive?
I also object *very strongly* to the implication
that the caucus is in some way packed with
"professionals" who do not work for the interests
of civil society.
Name names, make your case. Or apologize, please.
Caucus members have worked extremely hard for the
past year to ensure that civil society interests
are well represented in Internet governance
discussions. We have helped the WGIG become as
open and transparent a process as I think anyone
could have hoped for. The WGIG has almost half
its members from civil society related
organizations. Anyone participating in
discussions around WGIG will see the very
positive impact civil society is having and the
high degree of respect given to our contributions.
We are well aware that people on our list and
active in caucus discussions have different roles
(this was a subject discussed during two of our
open caucus meetings in Geneva.) We know what
conflicts of interest exist, people are open
about this, and we respect their opinions and are
well aware of who wears what "hat".
Jean Louis, rumor mongering and spreading stories
does more harm to civil society than any press
release or statement with the private sector ever
could.
We must stop this self-destructive behavior and show more respect.
Kind regards,
Adam
>Best
>Jean-Louis Fullsack
>CSDPTT
Geneva, PrepCom2: attempting to coordinate a statement on Internet governance.
On Monday Feb 21 the Internet Governance caucus
came to the evening Content & Themes meeting and
proposed to work with any/all caucuses on
coordinated statements about Internet governance.
We knew governments would be discussing the draft
WGIG report on Feb 24. We knew we would have
about 15 minutes in which to make statements. It
seemed sensible to coordinate how best to use
those 15 minutes.
There was general agreement to such a coordinated
approach from Content & Themes and a number of
caucuses indicated an interest in making a
statements on Internet governance. We promised to
prepare a statement for consideration by the
Content & Themes meeting of Feb 23rd. Content &
Themes reserved the right to reject any statement
produced if it did not meet with the approval of
the meeting. Internet governance caucus accepted
this.
Internet governance caucus took contributions
over the course of the following day (Feb 22). On
the morning of Feb 23 the Internet governance
caucus held an open meeting to discuss the
overall statement and key issues. All this was
mentioned in Content & Themes and I believe also
announced in the morning plenary meeting. There
were no objections, only support for what we were
trying to do.
Following the open meeting, a few people joined a
small drafting team and came up with a statement
on behalf of the Internet governance caucus, and
statements from 3 other caucuses: human rights,
media and privacy. The latter were the product of
the caucuses concerned, but took major themes
suggested by others into consideration. The
Internet governance caucus attempted to
incorporate major input from caucuses (e.g on
Gender.)
Jeanette Hofmann read the resulting draft
statement to the Content & Themes meeting on the
evening of Feb 23. It was received with general
approval (people applauded ... that was very
pleasing :-)
We asked if we should present the statement on
behalf of the Internet governance caucus, or
could we say it had the support of Content &
Themes? There seemed to be support for saying it
was supported by the group, although I do not
think we had satisfactorily discussed the matter
before YJ Park entered the room and objected to
the statement in a more general way.
The meeting closed with agreement to say the
statement was supported by Content & Themes.
On Feb 24 the statement
<http://www.wgig.org/docs/CS-Hofmann.rtf> was
read to the prepcom on behalf of the caucus and
Content & Themes.
Was this adequate? What should be done differently?
(with apologies for the long, dull description... )
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
More information about the Plenary
mailing list