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

[west]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "iranfree" <iranfreelance at hotmail.com>
To: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu.org>
Cc: <workingmethods at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS Plenary" <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Working Methods] Re: who is pleanry?


> Dear Vitorio
>
> Firstly what the relation of my arguments and Samasekou? please don't mix 
> up things, secondly regulations needed everywhere, are you a pro-anarchy? 
> I think you missed the prepcom 1  and you didn't witness what happened, in 
> that case you may realize what I mean by X and individuals. Because of 
> that we as civil society groups decided to have rules and procedures to 
> work , it was a consensus and collective decision, sorry if you missed 
> that opportunity to raise your voice, physically , not just through email 
> in the plenary. X is not always Tunisia and could be Iran, Iraq, USA, etc. 
> We are setting precedents here, so we should be careful.
>
> Internet is for all human begins, individuals, yes, I am not against it, 
> who is? but please do not try to mix issues to defend your argument, WSIS 
> is a Governmental UN process, physical, not virtual (it might used virtual 
> ways to share information), but the decision making is by diplomats of the 
> governments, which normally don't check emails when they are talking, so 
> CS should be there to intervene, responsibly and in a transparent way, so 
> we have different working methods to reorganize ourselves to be able to 
> effectively, not always in a democratic way I agree, defend the CS 
> position and raise their voice. Then this should be systematic, be 
> bureaucratic and organized to be effective, we cannot have a CS in anarchy 
> and be able to engage in a political and diplomatic process. Individuals 
> are welcome, but in a formal context which UN sets, not us. If human 
> rights in china is rejected, it is so. We have raised our voice, we 
> objected and that's it. What do you want to do, occupy the Govt plenary 
> and bit them up? this arguments reminded me the kind of arguments 
> fundamentalists used in Iran when they occupied the USA embassy in 
> Tehran!! if they don't listen to us, we will crack them down! (hmm we are 
> hearing it again these days!)
>
> So dear friends who want to be a part of this slow and bureaucratic UN 
> process, this process has its own regulations, like it or not, we couldn't 
> change it and  I didn't set it, so don't criticize me for it. We are all 
> member of organizations, we might not consult our capital, but definitely 
> we will at least send emails to our group of members, asking their opinion 
> regarding an specific issue, for example of you want to sign a petition on 
> behalf of your NGO, this should be consulted with the director of that NGO 
> first. Is this irrational and non-democratic?? and please don't again mix 
> the democratic theories with our work here, according to UN rules CS 
> entities who are accredited are able to engage in the process. So there is 
> no clear definition of participation of individuals in this process, I 
> don't know what to do about it, really, please object to UN about it. NGOs 
> in the process are a group of people who have same rights as individuals 
> and they are also individuals, but work in a collective manner and 
> coordinate things with each other, is that against democracy?
>
> Regarding voting, I have raised my voice, as member. This is the CSP 
> decision and please raise it next time with them. I don't think is a wise 
> decisions to give voting rights to individuals in THIS process (I am not 
> talking about other places), this process. Just imagine with yourself, 
> that you are attending WSIS in capacity of a medium size think tank, and 
> there are many other people sitting there which they represent themselves 
> in a UN process, your NGO has 5000 members and votes for apple and there 
> are 50 people sitting there voting against apple, what is the weight of 
> the votes? is it really equal? change apple to human rights, freedom of 
> expression, etc..
> Democracy is through parties and groups, not individuals, the whole world 
> is running on this system, of representation, people vote to someone to 
> raise their voice in an assembly, is it possible to invite all citizens to 
> attend and vote? then shall we open the UN halls to all people who are 
> passing by and request them to decide on the issues? in theory it seems 
> perfect, utopia, but where is this utopia and how it could work? Please be 
> realistic, while being an idealist. No problem being both..
>
> Just a matter of reminder, all groups and NGOs, with every size are able 
> to be accredited and join the process and nobody could object to it, 
> unless a government objects, so CS didn't object to anyone, it was others. 
> I am not at all against any sort of participation of small groups, small 
> NGOs (I am myself member of a very small NGO), and informal coalitions, 
> but to be able to work in harmony we need regulations to work, not 
> anarchy. Sorry for being to blunt, I am known of being open and frank and 
> do not care about diplomatic speaking.  And if you want to really have a 
> 10,000 people gathering to discuss internet, please book Geneva stadium 
> next time, as we couldn't have it in palais des nations! and I really want 
> to see how you would democratically organize them and reach a decision on 
> something in one hour! (from 9-10 am like the CSP).
> This is a good experience for all of us to see how we could work better 
> and what kind of theoretical differences we have. I might missed some 
> points ,as your email was long. A funny and nasty remark: Bush is a 
> democratically elected president of US (elected by individuals like us)! 
> we might have problems with him, but Bin Laden is head of a terrorist 
> group and god knows how he was elected!
>
> Regards
> Amir
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu.org>
> To: "west" <westasiaregion at hotmail.com>
> Cc: <muguet at wtis.org>; <workingmethods at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS Plenary" 
> <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 12:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Working Methods] Re: who is pleanry?
>
>
>> 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...
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Workingmethods mailing list
> Workingmethods at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/workingmethods
>