Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:18:59 +0700 From: Sacha Jotisalikorn <sacha@forumasia.org> Subject: [communication 923] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] press statement (again) - CS critique - what next? To: communication@wsisasia.org Message-Id: <18371832-F561-11D7-83BA-000393DB8C92@forumasia.org> X-Mail-Count: 00923Begin forwarded message:> From: arne <arne@my-mail.ch>> Date: Thu Oct 2, 2003 18:57:01 Asia/Bangkok> To: plenary@wsis-cs.org> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] press statement (again) - CS critique - > what next?> Reply-To: plenary@wsis-cs.org>> Hi all!>> The second week of PrepCom3 was one of increasing discontent within => civil society of WSIS processes, and there was an increasing mood that = > something would have to change drastically, or otherwise civil society = > participation would not make sense anymore, however without clearly => identifying criteria and strategies for that, or a "Plan B". This > became apparent at the press conference on the last day and in the > documents created on that day. On the one hand, we made our > frustration and our fundamental disagreement public, on the other hand = > we said we're happy about the progress made. Some journalists and list = > participants were confused about our seemingly contradictory > statements.>> I think we should discuss on that issue a little further. > Particularly, we should try to clarify 3 points:> 1. What exactly is our view of the summit process? What are we happy => with and what is the source of our frustration?> 2. When exactly will we reach a point at which we do what we said at => the press conference - to not give further legitimacy to the WSIS?> 3. And what will be our strategy once that point is reached?>> Some thoughts on these points...> 1. One of the reasons why we came across a little vague and unclear on = > the last day is that we mixed up participation and content issues. I => would argue that we should separate these issues very clearly. As for => participation, we are still miles away from a true multi-stakeholder => process that would deserve its name, but certainly a lot of progress => has been made since the beginning (and also compared to other summit => processes), and that's certainly a positive development which should => be recognised as such. On the content side, however, we have seen that = > the documents increasingly ignore civil society positions and that > those few points which had been introduced temporarily have been > kicked out again. So our criticism should focus on WSIS content, and => that's the level on which we should define whether we continue > involvement in the process or whether we should change tactics.>> 2. In our response to the draft declaration, we have agreed on basic => principles, which were emphasised as "non-negotiables" by the > content&themes group, and which were complemented by remarks on this => list (for example, see Adam's mail). Amongst the points mentioned > were: a people-centered approach, special attention on the poor and => marginalised, emphasis on diversity, full quotation of Art. 19 and > other rights, focus on public participation, concrete > actions/mechanisms for development, rejection of "information > security", gender focus, community media, education, labour rights, => communication rights (or at least recognition of communication), free => software, review (or at least balance) of IPR, CS participation in > internet governance. How do we define exactly when the borderline > regarding these "non-negotiables" is crossed, i.e. when exactly do we => reach the point at which we put into practice our announcement to "no => longer give legitimacy" to the documents?>> 3. There are many possible actions which could follow in case our > requirements are not met. Which do people think would be appropriate => and possible to reach consensus on?> - present the CS declaration as alternative declaration?> - announce publicly that the multi-stakeholder process has failed?> - use our speaking slots at the government plenary to convey only this = > message, or refuse to take part altogether?> - link up with side-events and alternative events around the summit => and focus on them?> - ...>> All these points have been discussed extensively at the PrepCom, but => they still lack some clarity. If we announce that there are limits to => our consent, then we have to be clear about those limits and have to => have a possible "Plan B".>> Sorry for this lengthy mail...> Regards,> Arne> =_______________________________________________________________________ => _____________________> MÅe auf kleines Postfach? http://my-mail.ch/?redirect=9903> Ich ha Di gçÓn! Sofort Blumen schenken mit swissflowers.ch! > http://my-mail.ch/?redirect=9911>> _______________________________________________> Plenary mailing list> Plenary@wsis-cs.org> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary>> =923_2.enriched (attatchment)(tag is disabled)