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

[lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca]

Hi all:
The issue of the representativeness, legitimacy, transparency, and 
accountability of CS has always been lurking in this process. It is so 
predictable, and if we fail to reach consensus on  " representiveness " in 
this designation process, this could be used against us; so for better or 
worse, we must figure this out and be smart about it. I am not the only one 
who has called attention to this gap between our rhetoric and our actions on 
numerous occasions in Canada and elsewhere. It is good to see some who had 
not previously considered this question important now take an utterly 
different position. Progress is being made!

Bertrand, I support your good idea below, and have a couple of observations:

1. Can the speakers designated so far and with care and concern for other 
factors (gender, geography, CS groups, etc) possibly map themselves, or be 
matched to the ten topical themes? How can this be decided? Who can do this? 
Maybe your idea of the 10 working groups for CS topics can do this? Still 
need to coordinate of course.

2. Would any of those speakers be willing to work with a more high profile 
person as a kind of "co-presenter"? (No I do not mean physically, only one 
speaker at a time, and we all know the limits here -- see point 3 below.)

3. Might it be possisble to identify a "CS buddy system" so that eg. if some 
high visibility, high profile media magnet like Berners Lee, Barlow, were 
nominated, or desired, they might partner with an involved, committed Wsis 
CS designate on one of the ten topics.

How:
Pick someone on the current CS List (the spread sheet we received on 
Saturday) and match to themes 1-10. Bertrand has set out which groups might 
be relevant to which topics, but no names.
He has suggesated 10 working groups. We could propose, and groups might 
agree on a "high profiler" who matches the topic.
Make a match.

This idea is workable, as what  we would need is to match Wsis involved 
person and visibility profile person - could be via email, on the telephone, 
and even better face to face. This way the "name"/"face" could be informed 
on the process, and the more Wsis experienced, and less visible person could 
attract attention by association. Maybe it could in some cases work in 
reverse: someone nominated and unknown could carry the speech with passion 
and direct experience, and the name/face could support and lend their aura 
for the promotion of the case.
Let's reality check here. High profile means media attention, maybe public, 
maybe head of state attention - and there are various ways to do this. Of 
course no one likes to be in the shadows but alas we are not all high 
visibility. ( Even Wsis which I called the "invisible summit", seems to be 
looking more attractive judging by fact high profilers are now starting to 
want to get into the speaking slots.
Progress!

But celebrity alone  cannot be allowed to trump the ideas and understandings 
and principled compromises forged in this process by CS, much less the 
painful and emergent process itself, flawed as it may be.
(for the record, I know and like Barlow, and he would be great, albeit I am 
not sure he would make the case that some may assume he would make. )
I shall not comment on the enduring tensions and disagreements in CS on 
content and positions - these tensions are just there, and what may save 
this process from further fracturing is the tight time frame of the 
presentations. As many of you have said we must now focus on our grounds for 
agreement, not the many points of contention.

If you think about this buddy system approach, policy or government aides 
working at Wsis and then advising and informing their heads of delgation, or 
head of state, do somewhat the same thing.
Who gets the media to come? Not the aides. But the heads of state do not 
just make it up as they go along. (Well most do not anyway.:(
Let's face it, we are all now trying to come up with creative strategies to 
resolve problems that were predictable, were not seen by this committee 
previously at least publicly, are now urgent, and  must be solved fast.

I am sure someone else will have a much better idea here, but please do not 
reject this as too hard to do - it is not.
If we took account of the consistent concerns even on this list - North 
America and Canada; grassroots caucus; gender sensitivity; duplication of 
some committees; and more,
If we tried a linking strategy of celebrity name/face/ repurtation and Wsis 
experienced (buddy system?),
did not permit freelancing of celebrities at this time,
but tried to ensure a balanced selection of 10 speakers on 10 topics as CS 
nominees as Bertrand suggests, we might get an optimum:
people who could reflect the history and issues struggled with so far in 
Wsis,
people who have given a lot to this process, but who should not be entitled 
to be insiders and have an automatic monopoly on the speaking slots,
people who also should not be displaced completely by those who have done 
nothing so far in the process ( for good reasons no doubt),
and attention due to infusion of new people whose credibility rests more on 
their celebrity and visibility or reputation for knowledge in related areas, 
but who would doubtless have to get up to speed on Wsis issues.

We know heads of state or even corporate chiefs get informed by aides who 
slug it out n the process, or witness, and then those heads come or do not 
come,
and only then is the Summit an event.
IF the human rights issues in Tunisia can be addressed so that it is 
possible to hold (as the Canadian delgation said at Prep com 3 2005) a 
summit in and not on Tunisia (and I may be in minority but I consider this a 
very serious obstacle still) we need IMO to create something like a CS buddy 
system.

endorse or amend the 10 themes
select 10 representatives from the Oct 1 2005 designated list wiith 
inclusion of some of the missing categories or groups

discuss, debate, add usual constructive backroom insider resolutions
select 10 high profile 'buddies' to match the 10 themes and their 
representatives

With input and some criteria (see celebrity should not trump Wsis CS process 
and ideas above)
match CS reps with high profilers
designate and endorse who should make the presentation and who should help.

We can do it. It sounds more complex than it really is, and I suspect there 
is a lot of will to get to some kind of resolution.

4. Finally, I continue to consider it a mistake to neglect voices from 
Canada, North America. Topics of Human rights, gender, cultural diversity 
have been strong contributions from Canada (even if this is not perfect of 
course). This concern is not about geographic representation for its own 
sake; it is about inclusion of a full spectrum of key stakeholders in a 
global dialogue. It is about including some  CS people in the area where the 
Internet was developed (like it or not). Likely we would not wish to have 
the CS high profilers be North American (Barlow, Charles Taylor eg.), 
however maybe a strategy of CS buddy system might help us get the best of 
all worlds whil making the most of multistakeholderismr?

This proposal is also about recognizing who will be needed there after the 
speeches are done in Tunis, to keep us on the road to implementation. We 
will all need to work together, so there would be a price paid for 
abandoning the on the ground CS hard workers, and Canada/ North American 
candidates  in favour of high profilers or others at this last stage.

Just my Canadian two cents while travelling!
Liss Jeffrey, PhD
Director
McLuhan global research network
& eCommons/agora
wsis.ecommons.ca
ecommons.net





>
>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