Dear Al, Susanna and others,
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Alan G. Alegre wrote:
> 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
> solidarity
Right! Side event is just side things.
Our basic and common concern is regarding what is happening in WSIS.
So far as I know, our list is discussing on WSIS in Asia, not on side
things.
> 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.
I myself am joining in many different modes of engagement directly or
indirectly and domestically or globally, but now in this list, as one
Asian, my concern is how Asian civil society should respond to WSIS.
For my other way of engagement, I am talking with others in other way, but
not through this list.
> 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,
First and Foremost, this is and should be our primary concern.
And we should clarify our position on this part because official documents
are almost everything (of course not all but) of this kind of global
event.
> 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.
I fully agree. And I want to emphasize that such relationship and
solidarity could be more reinforced by solidarity action. I have never
proposed "pull out" of WSIS. Of course, it could also be taken into
account. And in last PrepCom III, it had been taken into account among
some participants because of many tactical reasons. Still, you have never
explained why you are thinking "pull out" of WSIS doesn't make sense for
tactical reasons. I just want to hear that from you and others' thinking
on our position in PrepCom IIIa. And before we contemplate whatever we
could and should do in WSIS, we should correctly know where we are in
WSIS. That was my point.
> 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) -
First from Asian community rather than going further to CTWG/CSB
> done in an atmosphere where we have complete information (knee jerk
> reactions because of incomplete info is not helpful)
The most clear information is the direct output of PrepCom - draft
documents. First, we should analyze it and confirm where we are. Wishful
thinking is truly not helpful here. Many rumors and wishful dream should
be contested and verified by the current official documents.
> - 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.
I hope so, too. And in my thinking, to go through the worked-out pavement
is not the only one action in terms of strategy and tactic. Sometimes, to
go through thorny forest could be inevitable and more promising for
FUTURE. I never think that simply to leave out what governments are doing
in their way is not helpful to strengthen future global governance.
> 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.
Diversity would be expressed as a response and action to the challenge.
But beforehand we should confirm what is our challenge now and where we
are. And when we are talking in such a word - non-negotiables, it means
that we have some non-negotiable principles - we call it consensus
principles, and it is not diverse.
> 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).
You know, even for me, in considering our national interest or something
....., WSIS is not so disappointing. However, even in that case, as a
civil society member, I never say WSIS is promising. Because it is a lie.
> (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.)
To be careful does not mean that we should not or could not try to make
some consensus among participants. And consensus comes from diversity.
Diversity is not distrubing us from making some consensus. And we are not
just a coordinating body. We are also participants in WSIS process. Of
course, we are not representative of all Asian civil society. How is it
possible at all? Any one civil society member doesn't think in that way.
Our important principle is simply "open and transparency". We can pursue
to make some consensus among active participants in open and transparent
way. That's it.
> 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.
I have already made a briefing on some highlight concerns among those who
want to focus on specific issues. The point of my briefing is that most
important points (might be called as consensus points in Civil Society)
have been repeatedly confirmed among civil society group and most of those
points are no longer surviving in the current draft official document. And
I didn't hear any new additional language proposal in this list. For the
sake of most vivid and dynamic outreach and networking, we should know
what is happening now in WSIS process but not what is wishful, but not
realistic in WSIS.
And I propose to make one working group in Asia caucus for Civil Society
Declaration which would be worked out separately and independently from
WSIS official process. I am now involved in that drafting group and I will
volunteer that working group. I want to request particulary Sacha, John
Fung, Serena to actively join in this work. Of course, if anybody want to
join, let me know. I will announce what is happening there.
> So I have no problems bringing Susanna's suggestion forward, as long as
> the above are considered as contexts to any discussion on this.
I don't find any problem for Susanna's suggestion. And I also agree to
that idea. My question is if such an inventory is to be useful at this
stage and if it is to be so, how we should express our concerns more
effectively.
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
------------------------------------------------------------