And WSIS is founded on the concept of a working partnership between
government (including international organizations and UN agencies),
civil society and private sector. It's not working well, but that's
the experiment we seem to be part of. Not an easy process for
organizations that may be uncomfortable with the basic concept.
Example:
>
>Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 17:57:00 -0500
>Reply-To: Sasha Costanza-Chock <schock@ASC.UPENN.EDU>
>Sender: WSIS Civil Society -- Content and Themes
><WSIS-SCT@listserv.albany.edu>
>From: Sasha Costanza-Chock <schock@ASC.UPENN.EDU>
>Subject: [WSIS-SCT] alt.wsis
>To: WSIS-SCT@listserv.albany.edu
>
>Following discussions at the World Social Forum and elsewhere that it will
>be important for civil society to engage with the WSIS both from within and
>outside the official process, a discussion list for those interested in
>organizing 'outside' activity (alternative/counter/protest summit) has been
>created: alt.wsis@lists.riseup.net. To join: send a message to
>alt.wsis-subscribe@lists.riseup.net
>
One of the very vital roles NGOs play (particularly in Japan I think)
is that of "watchdog". Good role for alt.wsis.
Thanks,
Adam
>Of course there are much contradiction among civil society, government
>and private sector. But when we discuss, negotiate and then agree
>something with governments and private sector, that will be called
>"collaborative effort" :-) If you deny the "collaborative effort", how
>do you improve our society? Of course we can discuss things with
>Opposition parties and let members of Diet discuss in the Diet, but if
>we have a chance to talk with government people, we have no reason not
>to use it.
>
>I know your uncomfortablebess on the word "collaboration" or
>"partnership", because NGOs/CSOs in Japan are often forced to obey
>Japanese Government or long standing LDP regime under the pretext of
>these words, but the original meaning of "collaboration" or
>"partrnership" is not bad.
>
>SAKIYAMA Nobuo sakichan@sakichan.org
>
>At Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:48:05 +0900 (JST),
>Toshimaru Ogura wrote:
>>
>> Dear patcha and all,
>>
>> From: "patcha" <patcha@patcha.jinbo.net>
>> Subject: [communication 463] Re: Our Tokyo declaration
>> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 16:36:53 +0900
>> Message-ID: <MDEILHAAFDBNGFGCEKHEEEFGCHAA.patcha@patcha.jinbo.net>
>> >
>> > "The information society should be regarded as a collaborative effort of
>> > all the stakeholders including, civil society, government and
>>private sector."
>>
>> From my own experience, in some very important cases, I feel
>> difficulties of collaboration with government and private
>> sector. Because civil society has different interest with government
>> and private sector. As actors of civil society, we should recognize
>> fundamental contradiction among civil society, government and private
>> sector. Information society has nothing of predetermined harmony,
> > rather it is influenced by present serious contradiction of social
> > structure as global capitalism. For example, let's consider who should
> > have responsibility of so called digital divide. We have to review of
> > government, private sector and international organizations such as WB,
>> ADB, WTO and so on whether their policies for information society have
>> been contributing elimination of digital divide or not. We consider
> > the ICT is also close relate to not only economic conditions such as
> > poverty, gender and racial discrimination but repressive tool of
> > political activities. It is important thing that government and
>> private sector are major actors of serious violation of human rights
>> by surveillance and censorship.
>>
>> We should make clear our own position as civil society which has
>> different interest with government and private sector.
>>
>> I know my opinion seems to be minority of this group, but I hope you
>> may reconsider the present social structure has a lot of
>> contradictions which has strong negative influences to communication
>> rights of ordinary people.
> >
>> About below issues, I support patcha. Original is better. Statement is
> > an expression of our fundamental view point. We should not worry about
>> trifles.
>>
>> >
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > 13. Delete "never" and replace with not. Delete "any kind of".
>> > This is too definite.
>> >
>> > =>The full sentence is below
>> >
>> > "Values of human rights, democracy and freedom of expression should
>> > never be threatened by any kind of surveillance and censorship."
>> >
>> > It is difficult to understand why this expression is too definite.
>> > Rather, I think this is clear attitude of civil societies
>> > to the surveillance and censorship system.
>> > Many asian civil societies already got many experiences of surveillance
>> > and censorship system, and found out the danger of these systems.
>> >
>> > And I saw the expression, "any kind of" or "all forms of" etc. in other
>> > civil society documents.
>> >
>> > I hope to keep the original sentence.
>> > If necessay, I think we can discuss it more.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > PatchA
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> toshi
>> ((((((((((^0^)))))))))
>> toshimaru ogura
>> ogr@nsknet.or.jp
>> toshi@jca.apc.org
>> ((((((((((^0^)))))))))
--