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

Thu Oct 13 17:11:46 BST 2005

Just for the records, a parliamentarian is not part of a government but
elected by the people.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rik Panganiban" <rikp at earthlink.net>
To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Wsis-pct] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CS speakers from ITU for
opening, roundtable and high level panel

> [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!
> _______________________________________
>
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>