Dear Francis
(to friends in WSIS Asia list--Francis responded to my last post on this copied
to our list. If you didnt get that one, it is below this response to him.)
Thank you for taking time to respond to my personal comment.
I too would like to believe in WSIS being a process, and not merely an event.
But the objective basis for the previous stage--i.e., the two Summits--are
finished, and the focus of CS organizing has to shift to new (WSIS-created or
not) arenas. We are in a new stage, and the contexts are very different. And,
whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that in much the way the
other global developmental summits have concluded their core process,WSIS has
also concluded its own core process.
I do see your point that someone has to continue to play the role the Bureau
played. But it will have to be a new body which will draw on a new mandate
appropriate to the new arrangements and contexts CS faces.
I am pretty sure that I know the role and function of the CS Bureau within the
WSIS architecture, probably better than most, having been involved with it since
the beginning (PrepCom2 Geneva), and in fact being the one who drafted (with
Viola Krebs) the first reference document about the Bureau itself. I have also
of course been aware of all the criticism the Bureau has received in the course
of the WSIS process--many uncalled for, or a mere result of lack of information;
some however, legitimate.
The whole set of issues that bedeviled CS organizations (including the Bureau
itself) all throughout the WSIS process--questions of representation,
legitimacy, appropriate role, and prior rights--has led me to think that these
things should be reassessed and reimagined in a new context. Any gate-keeping
role at this point I believe must evolve out of a new consensus-building process
unhampered by the baggage of the past, and with an eye towards the most
effective and inclusive way to engage the future.
Do I think that CS should continue to organize itself and find spaces to engage
the post-WSIS arrangements? Of course! Do I think that all of the current
structures nurtured in WSIS should continue as is--I do not think so. Maybe
thats where we differ. (I concur though with most of what Wolfgang assesses in
terms of the structures of CS which may continue as before.)
I hope you do not think I am "abandoning ship" in terms of engaging meaningfully
(or trying to) in any and all governance spaces--global, regional,
national--which deal with making the so-called "information society" inclusive
for all. Because I simply am not. Aside from being very interested in the
discussions and engagement on the IGF and to a certain extent the DSF, my
institution (FMA) and global association (APC) has long been involved in
ICT/infocomms/internet policy and praxis for social justice, as with many many
other local and international NGOs...it has been doing so long before WSIS, and
it will continue to be long after WSIS is long forgotten I hope.
To equate the view of the mandate of CSB "expiring" with abandonment is unfair
to all who engage before, parallel to, and after WSIS. WSIS is not the be all
and end all of CS engagement--if WSIS did indeed prove something, it was that
our best intentions to participate in intergovernmental spaces can be thwarted
by bureaucratic red tape, political horse-trading by governments, and
authoritarian tactics by hosts.
WE continue to look at other areas where CS's advocacies and work can be
promoted--e.g., UNESCO Conviention on Cultural Diversity, ICANN, WIPO, WTO, and
the World Social Forums; ASEAN and APEC on the regional level, and many
engagements too many to list down in the national level. And for sure we will be
involved in efforts to organize CS engagement in all these as well, to make it
as participatory and inclusive as our principles demand.
Best
Al
P.S. Thank you for suggesting Izumi Aizu to play the role of focal point for
Asia--he has done so before, and he is certainly qualified to do so in other
organizational contexts that may evolve in the future. But that is for us Asians
to decide.
This point further amplifies one of my points about representation. If the basis
for representation will always be the capacity of someone--me, Izumi, or
whoever--to travel to the appropriate meetings, then the thesis of Michael
Gurstein and others critical of the non-inclusiveness of WSIS will be proven
correct.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Francis MUGUET <muguet@wtis.org>
To: Al Alegre <alalegre@fma.ph>
Cc: Robert Guerra <rguerra@lists.privaterra.org>; <bureau@wsis-cs.org>;
wsis-asia <communication@wsisasia.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:53 AM
Subject: Re: [CS Bureau] CS Bureau reform
> Dear Al et al.
>
> > Hi Robert and all
> >
> > Speaking in a personal capacity, I consider the CS Bureau of WSIS to have
> > dissolved when WSIS was concluded.
> There are two perspectives,
> 1/ the WSIS as a show, in my own opinion a
> rather superficial one ( the show is over, lets pack our stuff ),
> 2/ the WSIS is a process, this perspective is more responsible
> in the sense that one fully knows that to get recommandations
> adopted is one thing, to get them implemented is anoher
> yet more difficult task.
>
> Another point is that the WSIS is an unfinished business
> on issues of substance :
> 1/ the governance is still a matter of hot debate, the only thing
> that has been agreed is that we must talk about it further.!!!
> 2/ no internationnal governmental financial mechanism to bridge the
> digital divide has been proposed, there are a few alternative
> financial mechanism that have been proposed that needs to
> be either reinforced or discussed.
>
> Concerning implementation, the fight to get the WSIS
> recommendations to be even quoted and implemented as such
> ( and not as a vague reminder ) is going to very tough,
> as I had the experience with UNESCO during its last
> 33rd conference.
>
> Therefore it quite clear that the
> WSIS process is not concluded, the hard part is only beginning.
>
> The WSIS has determined
> several implementation and follow-up mechanims that still needs to
> be organized. There are a lot of procedural issues that are
> going to be negotiated between the Civil Society and
> the executive secretariats of the various of the various
> follow-up bodies.
>
> If there is no more Civil Society Interlocutor to interact with,
> then the interest of the Civil Society will be not adequately
> and inclusively defended. If we do not stay, we are
> abandonning our post, betraying our mission.
>
>
> (I don't know if this parallels the
> > Intergovernmental Bureau). This is simply due to the fact that WSIS is
> > concluded, and the basis for organizing ourselves has moved on to a new
phase...
> > Am not sure now
> If you are not so sure of anything and not so well informed, then
> it would be more prudent to adopt a softer language than "I consider".
> The last meeting in Geneva BRIEFING FOR NGOS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE WSIS
> 7 December 2005 15:00-18:00 was well attended.
> Utsumi and Karklins were present, and there were enlightenning
> discussions. While, I am sorry that logistics prevented many people
> to attend, it clearly demonstrated that the WSIS process was alive.
> In fact, we recorded on video all this event, along with special
> interviews of Utsumi and Kanrlins towards the goal
>
>
> > what the CS Plenary has formally decided in this regard, but I
> > suspect that the opportunity to formalize any decision on this has passed.
> I believe that the general mood was the Civil Society must continue
> within its current structure its advocacy towards an efficient
> implementation and follow-up.
>
> So far I know no other than your family has decided to dissolve
> ( or put in stand by mode ). There is no consensus on dissolving.
>
> > We are in a new context, and Civil Society was I recall in the midst of
> > rethinking all its structures and mechanisms.
> > Even the Internet Governance Caucus, which has the most reason to continue
its
> > work in the context of the IGF discussions, is also rethinking its role,
nature,
> > and function.
> There has been many diverse opinions in this Internet Governance Caucus
> In fact, a new Internet Governance group
> has been recently created :
> Multi-stakeholder Modalities Working Group ( created 14 Dec 2005 ).
> So people are continuing to be involved.
>
> > It would have been ideal to have had a concluding Final Assessment of the
Bureau
> > (and of other structures), but logistical realities may prevent it.
> Aizu has represented many times the Asia region at the CSB, and
> he is present to many internet related meeting.
> May be, it would be fine if you could find
> some arrangement with him so that
> he could become the focal point of the Asia region if logistical
> realities prevent you to personnally attend.
> ITU has been somewhat generous to pay travel expenses to
> CSB members. May be, it might continue to do so
> with follow-up events. May be ECOSOC might follow the
> same approach. I am aware that people from countries not being
> categorized as LDC has not been unelegible from travel grants by ITU.
> I would stress that the CSB as a whole carry a much more signicant
> clout to raise money from governments, and it was quite effective.
> Considering foundations, this ressource has been left unexplored
> for various reasons that has been alrready discussed in
> the Cape Town meeting ( another example of CSB financing by the
> way, thanks to ICV, by Francophonie & ITU ).
> Thanks to various efforts, two major
> foundations have become accredited in the last
> stage of the Tunis phase.
> They might be of assistance in the continuing WSIS process.
>
> >
> > I urge those organizations which continue to have the political access and
the
> > economic resources, as well as the institutional interest to do so (e.g.,
> > CONGO?) to help organize platforms for discussion and consensus-building
among
> > all civil society organizations in the most inclusive manner possible.
> >
> CONGO has played the role of the executive secretariat of the CSB in a
> very effective manner interacting with the WSIS executive secretariat.
> To dissolve the CSB would severely diminish the impact of CONGO
> with governements, and besides CONGO would have no longer a clear
> mandate to do so.
>
> > As for the Asia Pacific Caucus, we will continue to maintain our mailing
list,
> > and until such time that a similar strategic assessment and planning process
can
> > be held, it will function now mainly as a space for information and
> > communication exchange. Whether this will evolve into something else (or be
> > replaced by new coalitions to respond to the changed context), we will still
> > have to see.
> Yes, it would be advisable that you keep your advocacy network ready
> for the future struggles that may come, and there will be many.
>
> Do not give up the ship !
>
> Best regards
>
> Francis
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Al Alegre
> > previous focal point of the previous Asia Pacific Caucus in the previous
WSIS
> > :-)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Robert Guerra <rguerra@lists.privaterra.org>
> > To: CS Plenary <plenary@wsis-cs.org>
> > Cc: bureau wsis <bureau@wsis-cs.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:51 AM
> > Subject: [CS Bureau] CS Bureau reform
> >
> >
> >
> >>I'd like to repeat my earlier call for a re-evaluation of the
> >>structure and make-up of the WSIS Civil Society Bureau.
> >>
> >>The roles, responsibilities and expectations of the members of the
> >>CSB members has not been sufficiently defined (anywhere), and as such
> >>needs to be re-examined before it engages in any new processes or
> >>consultations.
> >>
> >>
> >>regards,
> >>
> >>Robert
> >>
> >>--
> >>Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org>
> >>Managing Director, Privaterra
> >>Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374
> >>
> >>