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

[Rik Panganiban]

Dear Friends,

As far as we have been informed, the WSIS Secretary General will not  
forward a speaker from civil society if they are representing their  
government.   This was the problem with the nomination of Adama  
Samasekou coming from civil society, since he retains strong  
association with the Malian government.

Our process as it stands is for the selection committee to forward  
the CVs and other relevant information to the WSIS Secretariat to  
assist them in making the final determination as to who will be  
forwarded to the President of the WSIS for final approval.  I presume  
that if there are speakers on our list who are strongly associated  
with their government, they will not be recommended by Mr. Utsumi.

We will be sharing with the Plenary the full speaker's list, with CVs  
and proposed topics as soon as possible.

On the general point, I of course agree that our process has been  
imperfect, too fast, etc.  But I also think that lots more of our  
designated people will get to speak in Tunis because of this  
process.  Where there have been gaps and omissions, let's find ways  
to use our small list of agreed speakers to address the messages we  
need them to support.

Respectfully,

Rik Panganiban

On Oct 13, 2005, at 9:37 AM, Robert Guerra wrote:

> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the  
> entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended  
> for specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic  
> translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>