[Bureau] Re: Fellowships WSIS: SOME REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION +

Tue Nov 18 14:29:46 GMT 2003

Dear Claire/Louise

Thanks for sending this matrix of approved fellowships. It is in this light that I am responding with some concrete questions of clafirication It is becoming a very urgent issue given the fact that so many of people we expected to be funded are not on the list. So please excuse the lengthy message and requests:

A. Firstly I have some immediate requests for clarification of the list elements so we can assess your list more rationally:

1. Could you identify the countries where the accepted candidates are from. Listed down in the Excel file are only abbreviations (or internet country codes) which we are not familiar with. It will help us situate the countries of origin.

2. Could you also identify the names of the organizations with acronyms which are not spelled out, so we may know what they are. (though I know some of them, including mine--APC is Association for Progressive Communications--others may not; I know that I am not aware several of those organizations cited (e.g., FMCU, which has a grand total of 6 candidates accepted, five from one country, MR.) 

Of course we particularly want to know this to find out what organizations from our region have been accepted. Aside from verifying how active they have been in the ongoing WSIS process, we should eventually be touching base with them to integrate them into our regional family structures and mechanisms.

Related to the above: Will we assume that everyone from the youth family is from one organization (Taking IT Global), or are they coming from different organizations? (Nick, are these youth reps all from TIG?)

B. Secondly, can you also help me to be clarified on the following, based on your message:

"After merging the lists from the regional focal points and taking into account the families who did not send their recommendations, please see in attachement the selected candidates list."

(Do you have the merged list of all the recommendations from the families that submitted names? I assume from your statment above that you have this. If so, could you please send this to the list? This will allow us to form a clearer picture of what choices were made relative to our recommendations. I am aware it is on the database, but since I was travelling when this was being discussed, I have not been able to access it yet.)

1. when you say that you took into account the families who did not send recommendations, what does this practically mean? I had assumed that if some families were not able to recommend it was because they either did not have any nominees, or did not come to an agreement among themselves on who  to recommend. Therefore, I would just like to know what families--aside from those of us who did submit something--you took into consideration in your choices. (This is in the light of the request of people like Amir for example who asks clarification on why certain people were left out from their list.)

"Up to now, we have to decided what we will do with the money left for the LDCs and how we may reduce the number of candidates from DCs/"

2. WE appreciate that donors do have their requirements; can you remind us again on who these donors are (and contact persons)? This is in line with a possibility that we may renegotiate with them on the application of the LDC/DC ratio, given the fact that CSB has a more wholistic set of criteria which we had worked very hard on, which acknowledges the LDC/DC criterion as just one of many to consider. (For example, the gender imbalance is quite apalling: 4 women out of 19 fellows in the DCs, 5 out of 29 in the LDCs--or just 9 women out of 48 total!).

4. Related to this, is the DC/LDC ratio the reason why some of the most hardworking people from the CSB and in the other working groups and families (who had been previously awarded fellowships in the past PrepComs), were not included in the list. I am referring to people like Beatriz Busaniche and Olinca Marino (to name just two) who were left off the list? (If people recall, Beatriz represented CS in some of the press conferences, while Olinca even chaired the CS Plenary last September!--both had been granted fellowships before...)

Louise and Claire, I think many of us appreciate how difficult your task is, especially in this area of work. But that is precisely why we wanted to share responsibility in both selecting fellows, and in talking to donors as well, so that we share also in the work as full partners in this process. We thank you for your efforts, but we now appeal to you as well to now support us in ensuring that the spirit of the discussions within the bureau on selection of fellows be upheld. I sense there is a growing level of frustration in this whole fellowship process, and this discussion may spill over to the other CS spaces; this will only serve to strengthen the impression that the avowed "multistakeholder process" being trumpeted by the WSIS organizers is just a slogan, and the real decisions are left out of the hands of even the most active "stakeholders" from civil society.

C. Lastly, I would like to invite the CSB to consider (quickly) drafting an urgent letter to the WSIS Executive Secretariat? to Pres. Sammasekou? to donors (e.g., Swiss Government), expressing our urgent concern that the fellowship process has not resulted in the best result for civil society stakeholders. For example, it bothers me no end that, as you say, 20 mayors from all over the world (who are technically government personnel, not civil society) will be funded to go to the Summit, regardless of how much they contributed to the WSIS process (probably very little, if any), while some of the most active civil society people who have contributed immensely to the WSIS process will be left out of the summit due to technicality or lack of endorsement from the powers that be in Geneva.

I would like to suggest that this draft emanate from the Regional Families (specifically Africa, LAC, Asia and Western Asia). Can we also ask Renate to help in the appropriate wording of this letter, so that this may be delivered this week. 

Thank you for your attention and I am hoping for a quick response to my requests for clarification. (Apologies for the longish response.)

Al Alegre
Asia Pacific co-focal point
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Claire Chombeau 
  To: bureau at geneva2003.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:25 PM
  Subject: Fellowships WSIS

  Dear all,

  With respect to our donors' criterias, here are the funds available for the WSIS:

  LDCs  = 192'409 CHF
  Developing countries = 31'959.50 CHF

  After merging the lists from the regional focal points and taking into account the families who did not send their recommendations, please see in attachement the selected candidates list. We accepted all the suggestions you made for candidates from LDCs and we had to select the most eligible candidates per country from DCs. The estimated total amount for fellows from DCs is 57'785CHF which is already too much.

  The Youth family negotiated special accommodations and perdiems (total: 85CHF per day instead of 180CHF) for their candidates. That is why there are more representatives from this family.

  Up to now, we have to decided what we will do with the money left for the LDCs and how we may reduce the number of candidates from DCs.

  As time is running, I already contacted selected candidates from LDCs, I am just waiting for your comments to contact people from DCs.

  For your information, more than 60 indigenous representatives and more than 20 mayors from all around the world are provided for a fellowship, thanks to the contribution of the city of Geneva.

  Best Regards,

  Louise - Claire

  World Summit on the Information Society
  Civil Society Division
  Place des Nations
  CH-1211 Genève 20
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20031118/eeedaff1/attachment.html