[WSIS CS-Plenary] APC's and CS participation in "closed clubs"

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Dear Anriette and Djilali
Please find below my comments on both of your mails from March 8th (Anriette) and 9th (reply Djilali) in English, despite it cost me a lot of time and restricts my opinion. 
I thank Anriette for her attempt to explain us the reasons why APC has been "invited (
) to represent civil society in general" in this closed club as soon as September last year. 
So, if I understand the basics in English, APC was intended -at least by the UNDP- to represent somehow "civil society", let’s say in general.
As far as the reasons of this "invitation" are concerned, Anriette reminds us APC’s presence in DCs, its involvement in ICTs and "in particular because (APC had) tackled the financing issue early in the post WSIS1 phase".
If these criteria would have been really applied by UNDP in NGO selection for TFFM, I’m largely convinced that CSDPTT would have beaten APC. And I can prove that with a lot of written contributions, proposals, suggestions, etc I presented on behalf of CSDPTT as soon as "PrepCom-O" of WSIS1 !
So, there may be other criteria. But, after all, this may be secondary for a lot of our CS fellows.
What I would have liked Anriette to explain us is the silence upon APC’s presence and working inside the TFFM. This caused the CS to ignore the discussions inside the TFFM during its whole lifetime and, by the way, the very content of its official Report. By chance I discovered a report written by Rik on the German CS website. However he just reported in a very UN bureaucratic and strict language what the different members told at this LAST meeting. No comment on what the "civil society members" (APC and GPK) felt, proposed or questioned at this last meeting. I do believe that CS members that are actively involved in the WSIS process deserve more than such a "communiqué" especially for a last meeting on such a crucial topic. And I therefore protested on the mailing list, but curiously CONGO (not APC) felt offended by my mail. 
So what is on stake here, is the activity and expression of "our" CS fellows in such "restricted areas" as TFFM and –at a certain extent- the WGIG. At least they should inform us on pros and cons, on hot issues, on possible solutions, on their impression, etc. 
Therefore a remark to Djilali : contrary to the terms of your message, the information given to us isn’t satisfactory, and I’ll still being asking CS representatives or members to be aware of their role in such bodies, and of their responsibility to report as well as possible to our members on the mailing list and –when convened in meetings- during our CS Plenaries. 
This is to say that CS Plenaries must become again the privileged space of debate, despite all criticisms of CONGO and other "Big NGOs" attempting to control and tame the CS.
Best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT 
PS : I hope Karen will be happy with my "short formula". 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050309/4433eefa/attachment.htm