Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:18:45 +0800 From: "Alan G. Alegre" <alalegre@fma.ph> Subject: [communication 979] Re: Giving Asia Caucus support to key issues at the WSIS To: <communication@wsisasia.org> Message-Id: <006c01c399e5$f0f5b1a0$fd00a8c0@fma> References: <014b01c3985d$93535b80$0a01a8c0@anoop> <5.1.0.14.0.20031023135807.00ad7978@202.57.74.189> X-Mail-Count: 00979Dear allThanks Susanna and the others for all of this.My positions in brief about this thread:1. I believe our engagement in WSIS is not limited to the formal summit =processes. I believe many CSOs within Asia Pacific operate within many =levels of engagement:- formal summit processes (through the CS global structures)- parallel summit or summit related processes: e.g., World Forum on =Communication Rights (WFCR), Indy-media etc. Polymedia Labs, CSO gender =spaces, ICT4D side events- national processes embedded (or not too embedded) to the global =intergovernmental process- outreach/networking activities, i.e., "WSIS as Opportunity" framework =to enabling stronger CS networking and consensus-building efforts that =would add value to national, regional, and global CS alliances and =solidarity2. I believe that many--if not all--of the Asian stakeholders in WSIS =are in many of the modes above. To use FMA as an example, we are =involved in various efforts: I am in the formal CSB, co-representing =Asian Family; I am in the Philippine delegation, I help convene the AP =NGO CCW, I am helping the Intl. Organizing Committee of wht WFCR and =part of the CRIS Campaign (and will be active in helping set up regional =and national components of CRIS even beyond the Geneva Summit); I am =involved in some oterh side events.3. Though I believe that there has been limited CS impact in the global =process--if measured through the amount of content integrated into the =draft official documents, there are other gains within the WSIS space =there that have to be defended (e.g., organizational structures of CS, =relations with particular governments, solidarity on thematic concerns =via C&T WG, etc. etc.). It really does not make sense to me to "pull =out" of WSIS completely for tactical reasons.4. Even so, I have no problem with CS making a clear political statement =on the negative outputs and processes that has been experienced by CS in =the Geneva phase of the Summit. My hope is that these positions, for it =to be of wide consensus and value should be:- discussed in the various self-organizing structures of CS in WSIS =(Plenary + CTWG/CSB)- done in an atmosphere where we have complete information (knee jerk =reactions because of incomplete info is not helpful)- taken in consideration of both STRATEGIC and TACTICAL goals within a =process that is still unfolding up to 2001- it helps advance and strengthen CS involvement in FUTURE global =governance (e.g., UN) structures, and does not weaken it.5. It would be good to be aware that even within this mailing list and =the Asian Family, there is wide diversity in terms of =context/politics/interests etc., though we are all civil society. =Example, I think some of our colleagues in the Pacific for example have =taken a more optimistic view about the opportunities of WSIS (warts and =all), to advancing their agendas in their own national contexts. So I =hardly expect them to fully agree with an overly critical position if it =were advanced by some of us with a higher level of frustration (e.g., =Korean colleagues). (So as I say often, it is often a "glass =half-empty/glass half full" proposition.) I think we should be careful =not to assume that the positions of all within the Asian caucus are in =consensus simply because I believe the members of our caucus/family are =so diverse. (I personally believe that ours is just a coordinating body, =with the possibility that some limited consensus is possible on some =levels, but not for all.)(Please also be aware that there are only less than a dozen people =actually are actively participating in online discussion, with a vast =majority of list members either just lurking, or even not participating =by choice. Therefore we cannot assume strong consensus on people other =than those who respond to posts like these.)6. Be that as it may, I believe Susanna's suggestion for a distillation =of our issues into a shorter document could be useful--not only for =lobbying (formal process), but even for outreach and networking. It also =will start a consensus-building process which is not achieved overnight. =Susanna is to be commended for volunteering to draft something on this, =and I am encouraged by the initial responses of some of us on this. So I have no problems bringing Susanna's suggestion forward, as long as =the above are considered as contexts to any discussion on this.Thanks for your attention!In solidarityAl AlegreP.S. I and some of us on this list will be at the APC Council meeting in =Colombia in a few days so our email access will be intermittent probably =for the next 2 weeks or so. We will try to keep in touch with the =discussion. Thanks.----- Original Message ----- From: Susanna George To: communication@wsisasia.org Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:31 PM Subject: [communication 976] Re: Giving Asia Caucus support to key =issues at the WSIS Dear Adam, Anoop, Chun, Patcha, Sacha and all others, Thank you for all the indepth responses that have been given to the =message I posted. I waited for more responses before responding but I =think now would be a good time since there is a pause in this particular =discussion. Let me try to explain what I meant when I introduced the idea of the =Asia Caucus giving support to key issues at the WSIS: 1. We are all fully aware that there has been reams of document =produced from civil society, through the issue-based and regional =caucuses, and through the Content and Themes Group, and as we have seen =little has been picked up in the actual government documents. The Asia =Caucus, as Patcha points out has also prepared several different =documents in the various meetings that represent our thinking on the =different issue. 2. My experience is arising from having worked with the Asia =Caucus in the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in 2000-2001. In =this process, the Asia Caucus decided to give its full backing to two =critical issues from the region: Dalit Human Rights, and the Self =Determination of Palestinians. What this meant is that all Asia Caucus =members, no matter what their other lobbying work involved, made a =commitment to ensure that these two issues were always raised on behalf =of the Asia Caucus. Isis, for example, held demonstrations here in =Manila in support of Dalit Human Rights, and the Women's Caucus was =heavily involved in promoting both Dalit Human Rights and Palestinian =concerns. This is basically what I am proposing: an attempt to bring =our weight as a regional Caucus behind key issues. 2. My main point really, thus is a desire that the Asia Caucus =should be seen more strongly identified with political positions from =the South, as has been the case of the Africa Caucus, and the LAC =Caucus. I felt that it might be useful in this final leg of lobbying =work for the Geneva phase of WSIS, to put out a brief document that =would simply state the issues that the Asia Caucus consider to be =crucial if the document is to be meaningful to the vast majority of =Asians. It is basically a lobbying strategy...it could be used =specifically in taking up our agenda with Asian governments that we do =negotiations with at this final stage. 3. I agree with Chun that is is crucial for us to decide at this =point what level of engagement we want in this process, and whether we =want to give further legitimacy to a multi-stakeholder process that has =for the most part has been superficial. And we could decide that if we =put out a statement, we state it in such a way as to make clear that we =will not give legitmacy to a process that has ignored what we consider =fundamental and critical to the WSIS process. So for me its not a long =list of musts - it is a way of doing lobbying that clearly restates what =we think are crucial to be able to gain our support to this process. I =don't think any of us or euphoric about the engagement thus far, nor of =the multistakeholder modality which is at best superficial. 4. Can I ask if others on this list agree with Chun's position =that we should first interrogate our degree of engagement in this =process? How many of us would like to make a statement that makes clear =that the Asia Caucus will not provide legitimacy to a document that has =not taken into account the key positions of civil society? I hope this helps us to move forward. Ultimately, I think we need to =give backing to some crucial issues and state our support in a way that =helps in a lobbying. Looking forward to more comments on this in the coming days, and from =those who have not responded so far? salaams, susanna At 04:07 PM 10/22/2003 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote: Dear Anoop, Thank you for your feedback! On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Anoop-focus wrote: > My impression of the Asian Caucus was not merely to attempt to =influence > the decision making process but rather to bring our quite clearly =key > areas of concern which have either been sidelined, diluted or =simply > ignored. A means to lay upfront, issues that a critical for asia, =not > with the belief that they may be incorporated in the document. ok. Anyhow, this attitude is far away from multistakeholder =approach. You are assuming that the principle of multistakeholder approach has =already broken down. Then, is it our common ground in Asia Caucus? It should =be clarified before we go one step further. And next, we should ask =what is our engagement strategy at this situation. Your idea could develop =into various types of actions and it could be expressively declared in =PrepCom IIIA and even to the Summit. To me, that discussion seems to be more important than simply making another inventory of musts which would =be certainly not reflected in those documents. > As you and many others have pointed out the process of ='constructive' > engagement with the WSIS has yielded little, and I have ( or had) =no > illusions of the WSIS actually taking seriously anything of =substance > that the civil society has to offer. I feel that still some people have such an expectation or wishful thinking. And the fact that the modality of civil society working =with governments in WSIS, which is implied in multi-stakeholder approach, =is very unique and truly one progress compared with the prior UN =meetings is being justified for taking such an attitude. > My opinion would be quite similar to yours, in that, we cannot =provide > legitimacy to document that is clearly non-endorseable. How can =civil > society de-legitimise the WSIS process is something that needs =more > clarity and direction. In last PrepCom III, this was one significant shared mind among =civil society participants. But in reality, it is lingering and becoming =unclear day by day. Are you proposing that we, Asian Caucus, should clarify =not to endorse both of documents at PrepCom IIIA to governments as well as =other civil society group members? regards, Chun -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Chun Eung Hwi General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone: (+82) 2-2166-2205 Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81 | pcs: (+82) 019-259-2667 Seoul, 158-600, Korea | eMail: chun@peacenet.or.kr ------------------------------------------------------------979_2.html (attatchment)(tag is disabled)