[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [CS Bureau] Overpasses

[Robert Guerra]

On 25-Oct-05, at 4:42 AM, Mohamed Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote:

> Bonjour,
>
> Voici mes commentaires sur la politique de distribution des «  
> Overpasses » :
>
> -    Pour le panel de haut niveau, d’accord pour ajouter 1 laisser- 
> passer
> pour  le caucus Africain et un autre pour le caucus de la  
> gouvernance Internet.
>
> -    Pour les Plénières, j’ai un ensemble de remarques :
> o    Le groupe de travail « Environnement et TIC » a demandé 1 seul  
> Passe.
> Pourquoi lui en attribuer 5 (500%), surtout que sa présence n’a pas  
> été
> très senti lors du processus du sommet.

it is a caucus. has an active webpage.

check with thomas (cc'ing him)

> o    La région LAC n’a pas été représentée lors du processus de la  
> 2ème
> phase du SMSI. Magaly représente le caucus Genre, et non pas La région
> LAC. Qui a demandé les 10 passes au nom de LAC ? Et pourquoi vous leur
> attribuez le double ?

DO NOT AGREE

- they couldn't get funding from the ITU @ phase II, that's why.  
blame the ITU, but don't  underestimate their involvement in the  
information society and involvement @ WSIS.
- as for reasons they want 2 - Roberto Bissio will be speaking,  
that's probably why.

It would be best if your comments where in english, as it's hard for  
people in spanish to understand comments in frnech . that being said,  
i will hope philipe and alejandra can translate your comments so that  
Magaly, Olinca and others can reply.


> o    La famille « Philanthropic Institutions » n’existe presque plus.
> Wolfgang est au caucus de la gouvernance de l’Internet. Il n’a pas
> demandé beaucoup, mais je me demande a qui il va les distribuer.
>

DO NOT AGREE
you are questioning one caucus after an another. it is too late in  
the process to state eliminate them. please post these very serious  
questions to the plenary. thank you.



> o    La dame Russe qui se dit représenter la famille «  
> Multistakeholder
> Partenarships » ne s’est manifestée que les derniers jours de  
> PrepCom3.
> Je ne pense pas que l’attribution de passes pour cette famille  
> serait une
> bonne chose.

DO NOT AGREE

She was involved in phase I in several of the video conferences that  
I organized at PC 2, PC3 & the summit.

again, no funding to come - so we don't see here. does not mean was  
not active in - THE INFORMATION SOCIETY.



> o    Pour le caucus des jeunes, je pense qu’il serait juste de leur  
> ajouter
> quelques Passes car ils seront très nombreux à Tunis (Il y a un  
> congrès
> mondial des jeunes qui se tiendra sous forme d’événement parallèle  
> durant
> la période du Sommet).
>
DO NOT SPEAK FOR YOUTH WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM -

let's get their comments. you do not speak for the,

> o    Et enfin, le caucus Africain mérite plus de passes eu égard au  
> nombre
> de ses membres.
>
DO NOT AGREE

if we follow your logic we should give the passes to the region that  
has had most representation - that would be Europe and north america  
region + all the caucuses they are a part of.  they have been there  
in the most number and been the most active - thus, should they get  
the most? that would not be fair - the other regions should have  
passes to.


At this point, i beg to ask the question - why are you speaking for  
caucuses other than your own? Don't please - if you do, you will open  
a pandora's box that does not need to be opened at this state. If you  
insist on getting comments, then we should open the comments to all  
concern - not just the CSB. Consequently, i am cc'ing plenary.



> -    D’accord pour les 36 passes restant
>
> -    Pour le mécanisme de distribution des passes, je vous enverrai  
> la liste
> des membres de ma famille qui ont demandé un laisser-passer pour la
> plénière. Vous remarquerez que leur nombre est supérieur au nombre de
> passes attribués. La distribution se fera sur la base du « premier  
> venu,
> premier servi ». Bien entendu, ceux du bas de la liste pourront  
> avoir des
> passes en fonction des désistements, et en alternant l’usage des
> laisser-passer chaque fois que cela est possible (puisque les  
> passes ne
> sont pas nominatifs).
>
Your family is what again? how active was it in the - process of  
negotiation at WSIS phase II. To be honest, i don't think I have meet  
anyone in your family other than yourself. where are they  
from...AH...let me guess, Tunisia... SIGH!!

you are asking we Tunisia YET another allotment of overpasses - that  
makes 100+36. my comment - I DO NOT THINK SO


Begs the question - I am very, very, very, disappointed that you did  
not care to comment on my comments nor address the very serious flaws  
I pointed out in the earlier draft Phillipe circulated . What don't  
need is a long discussion - what we need to do is move to ACTION, to  
actually get things done. This is what I have proposed with the  
online system. Can you comment on that please.


The address is -
https://secure.privaterra.org/wsis/



As Sean and others have commented - I was the only, the ONLY one who  
cared enough from the CSB to be involved in the overpass distrubution  
issue at phase 1. There were many lessons learned  . I have shared  
many of my comments on this issue because of that. Strangely enough,  
many of the proposals being put forward will lead, in my opinion, to  
a very flawed process . One that will be so complex that at the end,  
it will simply not work.

Given the concerns expressed by a large # of individuals in (real)  
CS, as well as by governments with the host country make it VERY  
problematic to  over-allocation of such a scare resource to the host  
country. Your comments and those of Marzouk and Moncef (seen as no  
friend of CS ) do not help either.

in summary -

- We currently have a flawed process that will not work. trust me.
- Worse yet, we have a process that - should it be approved by the  
CSB (and over  my dead body will it be), will open a pandora's box of  
criticism from fellow CS and govts.

- with only 3 weeks  to go i find it upsetting that the overpass  
issue has not been dealt with. The policy should be simple,  
transparent and adhere to the principles of inclusion of all CS. We  
should not, we must not - ignore those constituencies that have not  
been able to attend the phase II physical meetings.

- Worse yet, at this moment, I feel my experience and understanding  
of the issue is being ignored.

- I am not happy.