Dear Izumi san and other Asian friends,
Thank you for your continuous reports!
Then, what we want to know is what are the main debate points or the
differences
of emphasis points among regions or between civil society and governments.
I understand that at the meeting place, more attention must be given to
procedure and participatory form because you cannot attain anything there
without getting such chances, but all outside watchers' main concerns are
what are substantial issues are there and what atmosphere is prevailing
surrounding those hightlight topics. And hopefully, we want to know what
resource document is mainly being taken into account. In my thinking, the
compilation of regional reports and the currently revised President's
document are the main source for future discussion. Do you have any
different
documents to be noted? And with regard to the president's document, I heard
that
there have been some different comments and consideration. Could you
explain what is happening regarding those documents. Thank you in advance!
And one additional request I have already said should be noted again.
As you know, now webcasting is simply using only one main microphone of the
meeting place, so it could not reflect interpretation service. But in
practice, it means that only about one third of contents could be convered
if there are some audience to such webcasting service. This is very
problematic because it could disturb all other concened persons who want to
be involved in those issues from their participation. Now, they - ITU seem
to be proud of providing such service, but it has very severe flaw due to
its multiple-but at-once webcasing service. Why they have no intention to
improve that even though they are paying off funds for such high level
service?
I think this question should be appropriately addressed in terms of civil
society participation. In my personal view, such multiple-language-at
once service is simply for advertizement of the event but never to do with
real consideration for the people who are concened but could not be in the
meeting place.
Looking forward to your more proactive participation and good outcome!
Regards,
Chun Eung Hwi
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 00:10:02 +0900, Izumi AIZU <izumi@anr.org> wrote:
>
>
> Subcommittee 2 just adopted the proposal from the Bureau, the Subcom
> plenary adjourned, and now Working Group is going to start. No resistance
> from government delegate. Surprising.
>
> I think, at least NGO/Civil Society finally get the place to be
> substantively
> involved with the drafting process of both Declaration and Plan of
> Actions.
>
> Of course, the government will have final say, but it is much better than
> all the closed process so far.
>
> I am curious if this interpretation is right or not from our colleagues
> still in Geneva.
>
> AND, though the live is only with audio, you can also see video pictures
> from the archives.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2216
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: ehchun@peacenet.or.kr
---------------------------------------------------------------