[Wsis-pct] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CS speakers from ITU for opening, roundtable and high level panel

[Robert Guerra]

a couple of points:

1. The process was fast, faster than anyone would have wanted.

I for instance, have raised the issue many, many times. For some  
reason the process of speaker selection did not start until the last  
week.  I REALLY ask you to read prior messages on this , especially  
the ones from me...

2. I have, for some time mentioned that a quick process would NOT  
yield favourable results. In fact, it could be (and has been) easily  
manipulated to position Tunisian agents as speakers...

3. I have pushed and insisted for transparency throughout the  
process. There must be full disclosure on the activities of the  
people who are recommended.

Those who did not disclose fully their involvement WHILE the names  
were being considered, should resign. plain & simple. marzouk, please  
step- down

4. i'm not the chair of the ad-hoc speaker selection committee (i'm  
only a vocal member of it)

5. In regards to others whose names were received, and whose profile  
were well known...

- There was a feedback/comment period where all regional groups ,  
caucuses and working groups were asked to not only submit names, but  
also comment on speakers being proposed.
- the process was lightning fast..
- Stallman was immediately identified as a possible speaker. Many  
spoke highly of him and recalled he speaks at many high level events  
all the time. Others, HOWEVER did not share the opinion.  The lack of  
consensus on him was raised - and at the time, no comments were sent.  
As such, he was removed. Again - no comments at the time.

I will note that other caucuses DID object to have some of their  
nominations removed from the list. They did ask to have them be  
reconsidered should the opportunity present itself

6. We find ourselves in the situation that I long predicted - that  
is, a quick process that has not yielded optimal results.

- Again, i said this was going to happen - and it has.
- caucuses (such as pct, and others) are now asking for names to be  
reconsidered...

7. what to do - well, one overarching goal is to have gender and  
regional balance.

the problematic "tunisian" speakers are males, from Africa. Stallman,  
last time I checked was not from Africa...

an alternate name, one that keeps the regional balance  could be Mark  
Shuttleworth from South Africa. He's definitely higher profile than  
Marzouk and is also one of the key persons behind the Ubuntu linux  
distribution.

Note: I did propose the name early in the process.

8. To keep the regional and gender balance - then, let's take a look  
at it from a North American perspective.

- let us recall that Stallman was nominated and selected for a round- 
table at the 2003 summit...
-  There is currently only two persons listed in the round-tables  
from the north american/ European region

Ms. Tatiana Ershova
Director General
Institute of the Information Society, Russia

Mr. Simon Davies
Director, Privacy International,UK

I don't know Tatiana, but Simon i do know. As a member of the Privacy  
and security caucus I can say he has the full endorsement of the caucus.

Other than calling for Marzouk to step down  , I am not calling for  
any changes to the Round-tables. Why - well, objections were not  
raised when they should have been. The process has not been perfect,  
but we've tried our best given the information we've had.

Again, a serious development has been the fact that one of the  
speakers is a "directly appointed" member of the tunisian parliament.  
A fact, confirmed by those in Tunisia my I add... That is the person  
who should, in fact must step down. When that happens, the principle  
of regional and gender balance must be maintained - as should the  
principle of transparency..


9. What's left - Plenary sessions..

- These are 3-4 min interventions in the plenary.
- What the status is of the plenary speakers is not know. let's wait  
to get information on that first.

- that being said, again - the principle of gender and regional  
balance should be kept. There are two names from the USA at the  
moment - Robin Gross and John Perry Barlow. Robin has accepted and  
will be at the summit. Barlow, has yet to confirm that he can come.

So an easily solution would be to get  Richard get in touch with  
Barlow to see if he in fact is going or not.  If not, we might have a  
solution.



As i mentioned earlier - I have long standing issues with the speaker  
selection process. It should have started months ago as I have been  
saying all along. The process has not been perfect. Given the names  
have already been transmitted to the ITU and their decision is  
pending, then an changes after the fact may be a mute point. Should  
changes be possible - then an open discussion should take place and  
consensus, if possible should be followed.


For me, the proposal of a speaker from the Tunisian parliament is far  
more an important issue than Stallman being on the list or not. it's  
the issue I will follow, track and be concerned about. Other speaker  
issues are noted, but are ones that I will leave for others who were  
involved in the process.

regards

Robert





On 13-Oct-05, at 8:53 AM, Federico Heinz wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 21:42 -0400, Robert Guerra wrote:
>
>> let's not re-open the debate as to who or not should be on the
>> speaker's list.
>>
>
> Can you explain exactly why we should not re-open it? Or why we should
> not *open* it in the first place? I can't find much of a discussion of
> the issue in the archives of the list. As far as I can tell, caucuses
> submitted their lists, and then some people took decisions on their  
> own,
> in very familar buddy-network fashion. I also think that keeping  
> Richard
> Stallman out of the speaker's list is a major mistake.
>
>     Fede
>
>