Begin forwarded message:

<excerpt><bold>From: </bold>arne <<arne@my-mail.ch>

<bold>Date: </bold>Thu Oct 2, 2003  18:57:01 Asia/Bangkok

<bold>To: </bold>plenary@wsis-cs.org

<bold>Subject: </bold>[WSIS CS-Plenary] press statement (again) - CS

critique - what next?

<bold>Reply-To: </bold>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

</excerpt> =