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

[Meryem Marzouki]

But isn't this exactly what Bertrand tried to do, i.e. express the many 
dimensions of the "digital divide" along the 10 themes he proposed ? I 
agree that these themes may be discussed and refined - I also note that 
Bertrand hasn't proposed any order between them - but, frankly, I 
cannot imagine anyone speaking on the "digital divide" without 
analyzing all its dimensions, and this cannot be achieved in a single 
speach.
If I well remember the CS declaration at Geneva Summit, it has been 
written along those lines : an introduction setting our understanding 
of the digital divide, then paragraphs addressing the many dimensiosn 
of this concept.

Meryem Marzouki

Le mercredi, 5 oct 2005, à 18:03 Europe/Paris, Jean-Louis FULLSACK a 
écrit :

>
>
> Sorry to disagree with Bertrand's key themes proposals : for me and 
> for a lot of organizations participating to the WSIS process, the 
> DIGITAL DIVIDE (even if this buzzword isn't reflecting the actual and 
> much broader issues that DCs are facing) has to be put at our highest 
> priority. As all those involved in the field (grassroot organizations) 
> and in the domain (cs organizations and professionals from the sector) 
> know, this issue to be adressed needs not a segmented approach -such 
> as Bertrand's - but a real holostic one where financing is a ind of 
> focal point.
>
> Best
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> CSDPTT - France
>
>
>
> > Message du 05/10/05 13:20
> > De : "Bertrand de La Chapelle"
> > A : plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > Copie à :
> > Objet : [WSIS CS-Plenary] Plenary speakers in Tunis : why not focus 
> on the themes ?
> >
> >
> 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
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>