[WSIS CS-Plenary] oldcomer's angst

[Vittorio Bertola]

Dear all,

this started as a reply to the Working Methods list, where how to deal 
with newcomers to the process was being discussed, but as it grew it 
became a general reflection on where do we go from here, so I'm sharing 
it with everyone.

west ha scritto:
> Dear Avri
> 
> I agree with you in principle, but I should also say that the new comers 
> should also behave and be more careful when getting into meetings of the 
> groups who are seriously working on issues for a long time and investing 
> time , energy, money to do something.

I was not present when the episode you and Avri refer to, so I cannot 
talk about that specifically. However, now that the PrepCom is finished, 
I feel the need to share my personal angst towards this kind of view 
that surfaces every now and then in our discussion: the idea that civil 
society meetings are "meetings of the groups who are seriously working 
on issues for a long time", and everyone else who shows up in the room 
is, by definition, a nuisance to them that needs to be "damage controlled".

At this PrepCom, I missed many of the Civil Society gatherings. I did so 
not because I wanted to, but because my only practicable option to 
attend the PrepCom was to get my government fund me, and my government 
accepted provided that they get help back from me, which means, having 
me attend drafting groups and other meetings on their behalf. So, I 
quite often had other commitments I could not skip, overlapping with 
civil society meetings.

However, I fought hard to be able to attend the Plenary session where 
the new Charter of the Plenary was being discussed. I had already voiced 
my concerns to the mailing lists, and I was looking forward to a 
discussion in person. So I went there, I sat, and when the agenda item 
came, I listened to some speakers, then I thought of raising my hand, 
and I waited... I waited... I waited... and then the Chair said "we 
don't have time to hear all comments, so let's stop speaking: are you in 
favour of adopting this document? yes? (show of hands) ok, fine, approved".

The Chair did not even bother to ask whether there was anyone contrary 
in the room. I would have voted against, but I couldn't: apparently, 
voting in favour was the only allowed option.

Personally, I found my government delegation much more friendly and open 
to me and my ideas than the official civil society structures outside of 
the IG Caucus. While keeping a lot of respect for people that work hard 
for substantial objectives that I share, I find their procedural 
approach bureaucratic, exclusionary, obsolete, illegitimate, and closed 
minded.

Especially when you talk about the Internet, people are not used at 
Bureaus, accreditations, and the likes. When we tried them, they 
substantially failed. If anyone thinks that they can be used as a model 
for civil society participation in Internet Governance, think again. 
Internet activists are used to subscribing to a mailing list and 
speaking up freely without having to explain which NGO they belong to - 
if any, as usually there's none. Trying to push this kind of approach 
onto a well established and lively community of this nature will only 
create an insanable fraction inside civil society.

Now, according to the new charter, I will have no voting rights in the 
Plenary from now on. I must confess that I don't really feel like 
attending Plenary meetings any more. I would like to have a more 
constructive message, as I did plenty of times in the past, but I 
exhausted my options and my energy.

But I don't think that any statement coming out of this kind of 
processes can in any way be said to represent civil society.

Regards,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...