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

[Vittorio Bertola]

west ha scritto:
> 
> 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 .... 

This is good, but I have some objections: first, perhaps someone should 
report these discussions to the mailing list, to allow everyone to make 
up their mind. Then, I still did not understand the need to push this 
charter so abruptly (you release a first draft on Friday afternoon, 
collect comments until Monday morning, and put the document to votes 
from Tuesday...) even if this is causing divisions and if people did not 
have sufficient time to make up their mind, or even to come to meetings. 
We are all volunteers, but this does not mean that we have to renounce 
to inclusiveness for the sake of business-like effectiveness. There is 
no hurry.

> 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.

Fine. So can we change the section that excludes individuals from voting 
in the Plenary?

> 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!! 

I don't see the logical connection between the two arguments you are 
making. The second is a minor problem, we might decide that people who 
get double badges or move from CS badges to governmental badges lose 
their status as plenary members, it's an acceptable decision, even if I 
disagree. The real issue, however, is the first one.

I don't understand why you are so strongly defending a system that 
requires extensive bureaucracy just to get the right to speak, and that 
excludes or hampers not just individuals, but also informal coalitions, 
unfunded and smaller NGOs, and organizations that get strongly objected 
by governments. It is clear from the "Human Rights in China" case that 
in some cases the accreditation process is used to silence the most 
critical voices and only allow the "polite" civil society groups in. 
Even if I am everything but an extremist, I think this is simply 
unacceptable.

Now that we agree to disagree, what I don't understand is why we don't 
take the time to make a proper consultation of everyone about this 
fundamental issue, and find a solution that is acceptable to everyone 
and lets all those who want to participate walk into the room with equal 
rights. I am here, I want to participate, I am a human being like you. 
Why are you trying to exclude me?

To conclude, I have a nasty question: given your strong criticism of 
possible overlaps between governments and civil society, I imagine you 
totally oppose the nomination of Mr. Samassekou as lead speaker for 
civil society, correct?

> 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?

In practice, you are saying that citizens do not know what is good for 
them and should not have a voice, as we have these wonderful 
organizations that know what's best for them. And if someone happens to 
disagree with the organizations, then the answer is "who are you? who 
let you into the room? are you a provoker?".

I was taught that, in democracy, people are the ultimate and supreme 
source of power, that gets then delegated to other entities, including 
their free associations. It is indirect structures such as associations 
and governments that have to be accountable to citizens, not the 
opposite! Certainly, your vision goes against any basic principle of 
democracy I've ever heard of. Is this the agreed vision of civil society 
at WSIS?

> imagine if 
> you let individuals to get into these processes, then terrorists(as an 
> example!) will come also and many other people. 

Yes, a random example: if we open our walls and let other people in the 
room, then terrorists will come. Can't wait to see Bin Laden addressing 
the plenary. Are you sure that you're not George W. Bush? :-)

But the nicest part of your sentence is "if you let individuals to get 
into these processes, then many other people will come". As if it was a 
negative thing.

> 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!!!

I would be happy to have 10000 people attending the plenary. That would 
be a huge success. However, it doesn't seem realistically possible to 
me, at all.

I think that your example could make some sense only in one particular 
case, that is, if country X = Tunisia and we are in Tunis. So you mean 
(I hope), what do we do if in Tunis we get floods of unknown people that 
try to capture the Plenary? To that effect, there are lots of 
institutional mechanisms that don't require to exclude anyone, such as 
weighed voting, or a Council elected in advance, or extraordinary 
mechanisms to suspend participation, or plenty of others which were in 
my past proposals.

But in any case, and to be even nastier, I have to point out that the 
only strong statement against Tunisia that I heard at this PrepCom came 
from the governments of the Western world. Civil society's official take 
on this was to criticize the Human Rights Caucus for being unfriendly to 
our new Tunisian friends. Perhaps, if 10'000 people would come, they 
would make our positions better.

> 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?

Well, there have been years of discussions on these problems in all 
Internet governance assemblies. Various methods were proposed to deal 
with that. The point, however, is that you need to have this discussion, 
rather than just exclude individuals because you (not acting as an 
individual) think that they should be excluded. I did this mistake in 
the past, and I can tell you, it is a mistake.

The Internet works by rough consensus. It means that when two people 
disagree, they work out to find a solution that makes both of them 
reasonably happy. They don't try to exclude each other or to outvote the 
other position unless this is the only possible way to proceed.

The environment I found here, instead, is unfriendly. People constantly 
try to reject other people's arguments or find ways to ignore them. They 
try to set rules, rules and more rules to over-regulate everything and 
then use the rules, rather than the strength of their arguments, to 
support their positions. If someone disagrees, then accusations of 
blackmailing and hidden agendas, or of process violations, start quite 
easily. This is not constructive and is making people more and more 
disillusioned.

> Dear Vitorio, I understand your point 
> very well, but think of the consequences.

Yes, think of the consequences: we might even have statements and 
speakers that make everyone happy! :-)

> 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.

Samassekou! Samassekou! :-D (Who, by the way, happens to be a rather 
exceptional person. It's just that representatives at the topmost level 
should be symbolically representative of who they represent.)

> 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.

Pardon me, I thought that people made the opinions of their 
organizations, not that civil society activists had to take orders from 
their "capitals".

> 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.

No, I am sorry, this is definitely a discussion for the Plenary and I 
will not bury it in the WGWM mailing list.

I am starting to think that we should have a Charter that speaks of 
basic common values such as tolerance and inclusiveness, rather than 
about rules.

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