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

[Rik Panganiban]

Vittorio et al,

The question of what is plenary is really another way of saying "  
what is civil society."  We are not going to resolve it any time  
soon.  But it doesn't mean we should stop from discussing it.  It  
should always be on our agenda.

On the other hand, we need to get work done, and organize ourselves.   
Vittorio, I'm sorry that you feel divorced from our processes because  
we you don't feel included as an individual.  I don't think any of us  
want to be excluding you, or anyone else who wishes to take part in  
our deliberations.

At the same time, when it is time for decision-making, we need to  
have procedures in place when rough consensus is not enough.  In our  
discussions in the WGWM there has always been this tension between  
those who wish to give individuals the ultimate authority in decision- 
making and those who wish to restrict decision-making to accredited  
WSIS NGOs.

Behind all of this is a larger tension between the NGO world of the  
United Nations and the "internet community" composed of individuals  
and various loose organizations and networks.

The proposed guidelines from the WGWM should not be considered as the  
final word on this debate by a long shot.  They only represent the  
conclusions (for now) of the WGWM on how civil society's various  
entities can work together most effectively and democratically,  
within our diversity and differences in views.  In whatever happens  
after Tunis, we will have to re-visit all of these decisions and  
guidelines anyway.

So let's keep the discussion going...

Respectfully,

Rik Panganiban

On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:48 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> 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...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20051005/809043d9/attachment.htm