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

[Laina Raveendran Greene]

Dear Rik,
 
Perhaps we have not considered how to use this mailing list as a means of
notice, in the working methods guidelines. Take for example, that notice be
given to people that a decision is to be made at a Plenary is given at least
24 hours before, AND people have an option to vote online instead of only
being physically present, more people will not feel left out. Besides
Vittorio, I too feel that once removed physically from Geneva, many
decisions were taken and I did not have achance to input or cast a vote.
 
I am glad to hear therefore that it is still not cast in stone, and I know
you will keep working to ensure that CS feels included and we have an
effective method of universal participation.
 
Regards,
Laina

  _____  

From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf
Of Rik Panganiban
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:54 PM
To: workingmethods at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [Working Methods] Re: who is pleanry?


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/20051006/4a5e08eb/attachment.html