[WSIS CS-Plenary] speakers list transmitted to the ITU

[Milton Mueller]

I agree with Koven that "vetting" or censoring speeches is unacceptable,
indeed repugnant. Civil society - by definition - includes diverse
views, none of which have to be taken as "representative" of the sector
as a whole. 

It would be nice, however, if the selection of speakers reflected the
_actual_ diversity of views among those of us who are participating. 
Both options - a homogeneous, "vetted" crew, or a group of arbitrarily
selected folks with no connection to the spectrum of opinion among us -
seem bad to me. The issue is complicated by the fact that participants
in WSIS-CS seem to have no direct method of selecting the speakers. More
importantly, are these speakers largely ceremonial, or will their slots
be interpreted as somehow influencing the negotiations on the hot issues
before the WGIG?

>>> KovenRonald at aol.com 10/11/05 5:29 PM >>>
Dear All --

I'm not sure that it is a "reasonable request" to ask people with
autonomous 
existences as recognized figures in their fields to get their texts
vetted by 
a bunch of people they may or may not know and may or may not agree
with. At 
least some of the personalities whose names were submitted as speakers
were 
chosen because they have important standing in their fields and are
thus likely 
to be listened to by others. 

It does not strike   me as a "reasonable request" to make such
personalities 
seek permission on what to say from an ill-defined mass of persons,
myself 
included, whose leading qualification may be that they can get to
attend lots of 
meetings that people with active, time-consuming professional lives in
the 
real world can't take part in. 

If the names of prominent persons with real intellectual authority are

submitted   by us, it seems to me that we simply need to take our
chances that they 
will say things we can live with. And, if they don't, that strikes me
as just 
too bad. And just maybe such speakers are right and we're wrong. It's a
big 
world out there, much of which has "not been dreamed of in your
philosophies," 
as the Bard would say.

And those who might be willing to bend to such a text-vetting process
may not 
have ideas of their own and thus not much worth saying or hearing.

There's surely more than one acceptable set of ideas in a "civil
society" 
that is in fact infinitely broader than our congenial band of
conference-goers.

Rony Koven