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

[iranfree]

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...
>