[WSIS CS-Plenary] Plenary speakers in Tunis : why not focus on the themes ?

[Robert Guerra]

Bertrand:

thanks for the constructive suggestion. I support the idea of  
breaking down the selections by priority areas. It is a good approach.

However, time is very short.  We need to move quickly. Count on my  
support. let me know what and how i can help to make this revised  
approach a reality.

regards,

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>





On 5-Oct-05, at 7:13 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> We knew this designation problem would happen and we are on the  
> verge of being trapped into it. We must at all costs avoid getting  
> further into an divisive discussion among ourselves, based on a  
> sort of supreme right of each caucus to have a speaking slot. This  
> cannot happen and we know it.
>
> So, how can we move forward ? (I only address here the question of  
> Plenary Speakers - the question of the opening slot is a completely  
> different matter)
>
> There are three key elements/objectives to keep in mind :
> - civil society should be recognized the right to designate who  
> speaks on behalf of civil society in Tunis : this means it should  
> demonstrate it can make such choices (otherwise, we'll be back to  
> the Geneva situation and lose a critical opportunity)
> - civil society wants some key messages to be heard by governments  
> and must be clear about what they are (ie : we should structure and  
> prioritize them)
> - civil society wants to put in practice as much as possible  
> gender, geographic and competence balance in its representation
>
> If I am not mistaken, the process we put in place during PrepCom3  
> led to the designation of 22 plenary speakers. But, even in the  
> best case scenario, according to the documents circulated at the  
> begining of the process, there will be a maximum of 14 or 15 civil  
> society plenary speakers. And the executive secretariat will  
> necessarily want to put a few people of its own. This means we need  
> to shorten the list even further. So, at best, we will get 10 slots  
> in the end. If civil society wants to be able to claim it chose its  
> speakers and not leave it to the secretariat as last time, the best  
> solution would be to :
> - ask for 10 slots we will allocate ourselves without interference  
> from the Secretariat (establishing CS right to designate people who  
> will speak on its behalf)
> - choose ten key themes we want to put forward at the Summit (and  
> define them collectively)
> - select (ideally within the present list of nominees established  
> by the selection Committte), a group of ten speakers able to carry  
> these themes, respecting gender and geographical balance
>
> What could be the main priority messages for the Summit ? I propose  
> we start with the following list of 10 themes and try to refine it  
> further (themes are in no particular order) :
> The Information Society is based on Freedom of Expression and  
> Information : the Internet is a key instrument/space for freedom of  
> expression and information, and this should be protected and  
> guaranteed  (key Caucuses involved  : Human Rights, Media, ...)
> The Information Society requires Universal Access : participation  
> in the Information Society is impossible if the infrastructure is  
> not developped enough, including electricity, interconnexion costs,  
> backbones and exchange points, telecentres (Key Caucuses :  
> Telecentres, others ?)
> The Information Society must be inclusive and development- 
> oriented : gender balance; special efforts towards economically,  
> geographically or socially marginalized groups, including  
> indigenous communities; specific design architectures to facilitate  
> use by people with disabilities; special needs of children and the  
> elderly; promotion of multilingualism, including internationalized  
> domain names (Key Caucuses : Gender, Indigenous, Persons with  
> disabilities, Cultural diversity, ...)
> The Information Society depends upon Education and Capacity- 
> Building to be inclusive (Key Caucuses : Education and Academia,  
> Scientific Information WG, ...)
> The Information Society requires new legal frameworks for  
> Intellectual productions and creations : see creative commons, free/ 
> open source software, open access (Key Caucuses : Patents and  
> Trademarks WG, Scientific Information WG, ...)
> The Information Society should be based on trust more than  
> control : cyber-security is not only about censorship and police  
> but also about creating trust, securing the infrastructure and  
> protecting privacy, towards a true Digital Citizenship (Key  
> Caucuses : Privacy and Security, Human Rights, ...)
> The Information Society is built at the grassroots level, and not  
> only by governments and international organizations : local actors  
> and in particular local authorities have a key role to play (see  
> Bilbao summit) (Key Caucuses : Local Authorities, Grassroots,  
> Volunteers, Values and Ethics, ...)
> Internet is a Global Facility : Internet Governance is the shared  
> responsibility of all stakeholders and time has come to define the  
> proper roles of all actors, including governments (Key Caucus :  
> Internet Governance)
> A multi-stakeholder Follow-up framework is needed to implement the  
> the WSIS outcomes : governements cannot implement their commitments  
> alone and this is the opportunity to establish a neww cooperation  
> model at the international, regional and national levels (Key  
> Working Group : Implementation and Follow-up WG)
> Africa requires special efforts and innovative financing mechanisms  
> (Key Caucuses : Financing, African Caucus, ...)
> I believe these ten themes would allow all caucuses and interests  
> within civil society to find a space (but I may have forgotten some  
> issues). They could group together to draft the statements and try  
> to come up collectively with speakers who could best carry them,  
> with a respect for gender and geographic diversity. The existing  
> NomCom could interact with the various caucuses on that matter and  
> propose a final list of 10 names to be endorsed by the Plenary  
> (hopefully by consensus).
>
> In chosing the fnal names, we must take into account that the  
> messenger personnality, eloquence, reputation or origin are  
> important to make him/her really listened to in such a forum  
> (remember the impact of the presentation by the Youth Caucus  
> representative in Geneva ?). Given reactions on the Plenary list,  
> there will be strong resistance to the introduction of speakers  
> that were not directly involved in the process. Let's therefore  
> focus on names belonging to the various caucuses. This prevents us  
> from proposing high profile names that would attract attention; but  
> it seems to be a key condition for final endorsement by the CS  
> Plenary. And there is not much time left.
>
> Proposed next steps
>
> If the above approach is acceptable to all, we could, in the coming  
> days :
>
> - notify the Executive Secretariat that we want 10 slots that we  
> will fill ourselves and set a final deadline for providing the  
> names (I suppose there are printing deadlines, for instance)
> - review the proposed list of themes to see if there are key  
> missing points or if they could/should be formulated differently
> - consult among the Key Caucuses and Working Groups concerned by  
> each theme on what the content of each intervention could be and  
> who could best speak on each theme (list of 2-3 speakers from the  
> existing list of 22 ?)
> - set up a small drafting group and a contact person for each of  
> the 10 themes so that the preparation of the statements is done in  
> advance in a transparent and inclusive manner
> - agree to give the responsibility to the Selection Committee to  
> interact with the various caucuses and working groups to come up -  
> cooperatively - on an acceptable and balanced list of 10 speakers
>
> I hope this can help us all move forward. CS needs to shape its  
> message first and then unite behind it.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>