[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [Working Methods] Re: who is pleanry?

Wed Oct 5 08:13:24 BST 2005

Dear All, Vitorio

Thanks for following the issue, Francis suggestion is very wise. I have also 
requested you to attend the working group meetings and share your points, 
which hasn't happen during the 2 weeks of prepcom 3. We discussed whatever 
you could think of in details, who is plenary, who is CS, how we could vote, 
what is consensus, what if and if and if .... Frankly a major part of my 
personal time and group members, was spent in the WGWM and we missed many 
govt plenaries and other CS meetings, in order to prepare something for 
work, on a voluntary basis, so I need all of you to understand this point 
and compromise if some sections of the guidelines are not perfect, it could 
be changed systematically in future, no problem.

But regarding the accreditation, I am personally very much against any sort 
of changes in this process. UN process is a UN process, we couldn't change 
it, all CS people should register through an accredited entity. I am 
personally against any person using govt badge and sit in our plenaries and 
vote!! please think of consequences, imagine if we want to have a statement 
against governments and then all govt delegates come to our room and sit and 
vote, and when how we object, they could say we are also CS!!!! could you 
please tell me how you will solve this mess?

Regarding individuals being CS members, that is even worse.Civil society in 
UN process are societies, not persons, we are all representing something and 
some groups as a whole, not ourselves, it is not acceptable at all to open 
UN system to individuals, absolutely not possible due to practical and 
political reasons. Then these independent people are accountable to whom and 
which group, who are they? imagine if you let individuals to get into these 
processes, then terrorists(as an example!) will come also and many other 
people. Who will control them , how you would work and align yourself? 
imagine again the above scenario, the CSP is trying to issue a statement 
regarding country X misbehavior, then we may have 10000 individuals from 
country X sitting there and claming to be CS members!!! we are participating 
in this process according to rules and procedures and we are all responsible 
for what we said and do during this time to our constituencies and 
organizations, whom these people are responsible to? how you could give the 
same voting weight (consensus in CSP is a voting method) of a huge CS 
organization and one individual sitting there? Dear Vitorio, I understand 
your point very well, but think of the consequences.

So my final observations are: 1- We should have strict separation between 
govt and CS people is CSP, persons wearing govt badges should not be able to 
vote or even be a part of a consensus making process.
2-all individuals should be accredited through a CS entity and could not 
vote against the wish of that entity in the CSP or other CS sessions.
3-UN badge holders are just observers. 4- People could have two badges, in 
worst case scenario.

But these are points that we should discuss during the summit in the WGWM 
and its email list, I suggest to take this discussion to the WGWM listserv, 
as plenary email list is really overloaded with emails.

Regards

Amir

west wrote:
> We live in reality and a real world, we should face it, like it or not 
> this is a UN Inter-Governmental process with all of its characteristics. 
> If someone don't like this way of work, should suggest realistic 
> alternates and solutions. What we could and should do? come up with 
> recommendations.

The recommendation I already posted is the following (on Sep 26,
speaking about the Plenary charter):

=====
I object to point 5, in that we should not subject ourselves to UN
accreditation processes, that in some cases can be thwarted to deny
accreditation to legitimate entities (I remember a case with a Chinese
organization, not much time ago). Also, I think that more and more
individuals, acting on a personal basis, are getting involved in these
processes, and more will come. Thus I would propose the following
formulation for 5.:

"All individuals who either represent accredited civil society entities,
or subscribe to the online Plenary mailing list, or register in person
at physical Plenary meetings, are members of the Plenary."

If you want, you might add a clause of incompatibility between being
part of delegations from other stakeholders, and having the right to
vote. I must point out that that would exclude plenty of the most active
CS members (me included) that have obtained accreditation through
governmental delegations so to be able to enter closed rooms and inform
the rest of us.

Or, if you want, you might introduce a no-objection procedure by which
the Plenary, by qualified majority, can deny membership to selected
individuals.
=====

Was it considered by the group? Why was it rejected? Why was it not
brought up for discussion in the Plenary itself?

I am sorry, I don't mean to be blunt or divisive, but I find it hard to
go and fight for greater civil society inclusion, if then we fail to be
inclusive ourselves. The repeatedly challenged list of speakers for the
Summit is just another example. I think we need to sort out our own
accontability mechanisms.

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dr. Francis MUGUET" <muguet at wtis.org>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu.org>
Cc: "west" <westasiaregion at hotmail.com>; <workingmethods at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS 
Plenary" <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 10:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Working Methods] Re: oldcomer's angst

>
> Hello,
>
> Just a practical suggestion.
>
>> I must point out that that would exclude plenty of the most active CS 
>> members (me included) that have obtained accreditation through
>> governmental delegations so to be able to enter closed rooms and inform
>> the rest of us.
> Yes, indeed this is most helpfull and you are to be thanked.
>
> Accreditation is not personnal.
>
> You cannot speak as a member of the CS civil society,
> if you are wearing a governmental badge, this is needed to avoid 
> confusion, collusion, and manipulation.
> I guess that this point should be added in the CS plenary
> guidelines.
>
> The best suggestion is to register as part of an accredited
> CS entity, and have two badges.
> Some CS members are doing this.
> Since you are the ICANN at-Large Advisory Committee Chair,
> I guess that you could be part without problem of
> the ICANN delegation which is a CS entity.
>
> Hope this suggestion could solve your problem.
>
> Best regards
>
> Francis
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> Francis F. MUGUET  Ph.D
> World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)
> muguet at wtis.org
>
> UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
>
> World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
> Civil Society Working Groups
> Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
> Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
> Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
>
> Director
> Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
> Knowledge Networks and Information Society
> ENSTA
> 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
> Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82
> muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
>
> MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
> Associate Publisher
> http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
> muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 