<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2614.3500" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Dear all</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanks Susanna and the others for all of
this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>My positions in brief about this =
thread:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- formal summit processes (through the CS global =
structures)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- 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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- national processes embedded (or not too =
embedded) to the
global intergovernmental process</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- 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
solidarity</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>2. 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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- discussed in the various self-organizing =
structures of
CS in WSIS (Plenary + CTWG/CSB)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- done in an atmosphere where we have complete =
information
(knee jerk reactions because of incomplete info is not =
helpful)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- taken in consideration of both STRATEGIC and =
TACTICAL
goals within a process that is still unfolding up to 2001</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>- it helps advance and strengthen CS involvement =
in FUTURE
global governance (e.g., UN) structures, and does not weaken =
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>(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.)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>So I have no problems bringing Susanna's =
suggestion
forward, as long as the above are considered as contexts to any =
discussion on
this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Thanks for your attention!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>In solidarity</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Al Alegre</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>P.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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: =
0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:susanna@isiswomen.org" =
title=susanna@isiswomen.org>Susanna
George</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:communication@wsisasia.org"
title=communication@wsisasia.org>communication@wsisasia.org</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, October 23, =
2003 9:31
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [communication 976] =
Re: Giving
Asia Caucus support to key issues at the WSIS</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=Optimum>Dear Adam, Anoop, Chun, Patcha, =
Sacha and
all others,<BR><BR>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.<BR><BR>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:<BR><BR>1.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR><BR>2.
<X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR><BR>2.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.<BR><BR>3.<X-TAB> </X-TAB>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.
<BR><BR>4.<X-TAB> </X-TAB><B>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? <BR><BR></B>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.<BR><BR>Looking
forward to more comments on this in the coming days, and from those =
who have
not responded so far?<BR><BR>salaams,<BR>susanna<BR><BR><BR><BR>At =
04:07 PM
10/22/2003 +0900, Chun Eung Hwi wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite type="cite">Dear =
Anoop,<BR><BR><BR>Thank you for
your feedback!<BR><BR>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Anoop-focus =
wrote:<BR><BR>> My
impression of the Asian Caucus was not merely to attempt to
influence<BR>> the decision making process but rather to bring =
our quite
clearly key<BR>> areas of concern which have either been =
sidelined,
diluted or simply<BR>> ignored. A means to lay upfront, issues =
that a
critical for asia, not<BR>> with the belief that they may be =
incorporated
in the document. <BR><BR>ok. Anyhow, this attitude is far away from
multistakeholder approach. You<BR>are assuming that the principle of =
multistakeholder approach has already<BR>broken down. Then, is it =
our common
ground in Asia Caucus? It should be<BR>clarified before we go one =
step
further. And next, we should ask what is<BR>our engagement strategy =
at this
situation. Your idea could develop into<BR>various types of actions =
and it
could be expressively declared in PrepCom<BR>IIIA and even to the =
Summit. To
me, that discussion seems to be more<BR>important than simply making =
another
inventory of musts which would be<BR>certainly not reflected in =
those
documents.<BR><BR><BR>> As you and many others have pointed out =
the
process of 'constructive'<BR>> engagement with the WSIS has =
yielded
little, and I have ( or had) no<BR>> illusions of the WSIS =
actually
taking seriously anything of substance<BR>> that the civil =
society has to
offer. <BR><BR>I feel that still some people have such an =
expectation or
wishful<BR>thinking. And the fact that the modality of civil society =
working
with<BR>governments in WSIS, which is implied in multi-stakeholder =
approach,
is<BR>very unique and truly one progress compared with the prior UN =
meetings
is<BR>being justified for taking such an attitude. <BR><BR><BR>> =
My
opinion would be quite similar to yours, in that, we cannot =
provide<BR>>
legitimacy to document that is clearly non-endorseable. How can
civil<BR>> society de-legitimise the WSIS process is something =
that needs
more<BR>> clarity and direction.<BR><BR>In last PrepCom III, this =
was one
significant shared mind among civil <BR>society participants. But in =
reality, it is lingering and becoming unclear <BR>day by day. Are =
you
proposing that we, Asian Caucus, should clarify not to <BR>endorse =
both of
documents at PrepCom IIIA to governments as well as other <BR>civil =
society
group members?<BR><BR><BR>regards,<BR><BR>Chun<BR><BR>--
=
<BR>------------------------------------------------------------<BR>Chun =
Eung Hwi<BR>General Secretary, PeaceNet | =
phone:
(+82) 2-2166-2205<BR>Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81
| pcs: (+82) =
019-259-2667<BR>Seoul,
158-600, Korea <X-TAB> </X-TAB> |
eMail:
=
chun@peacenet.or.kr<BR>--------------------------------------------------=
----------</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>