[CS Bureau] Information about overpasses in Tunis (HLP and Plenary meetings)

[Robert Guerra]

On 21-Oct-05, at 10:02 AM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote:

> Please find attached our proposition concerning the attribution of  
> overpasses to CS participants in Tunis (HLP and Plenary meetings),  
> further to the up-date from ITU on the number of available  
> overpasses for civil society. We request your comments on this  
> document before we send it to the Plenary List. You can find below  
> some clarifications or questions.
>
>
thanks

>
>
> You can find in this document the requests we received and the  
> actual repartition, based on the guidelines established by the CSB.
>
>
>
> High Level Panel:
>
> The CSB decision was: one overpass for each active existing family/ 
> WG/caucus during previous WSIS events in priority, and one overpass  
> for emerging family/WG/caucus during if available.
>
>
we need to define that list of "active & existing" families/WG/ 
Caucuses first. This is essential - as, i can tell you from  
experience, there will be many groups appear suddenly, out of nowhere..

I would suggest they all be contacted and see if they are indeed  
interested. they might not be. If they aren't the remaining # would  
be added to an available pool and offered in a second round.


>
>
> After this, we still have 2 non-attributed overpasses. 2 caucuses  
> requested an extra overpass (Internet Governance and Human Rights)  
> and it would make sense to allocate one extra overpass to the  
> African Caucus with regards to its actual size.
>
>
seems fine.
>
>
> It is up to you to decide to whom allocate those two remaining  
> overpasses, or if we should give them back to the WSIS ES (for  
> information, the CSB guidelines stated that: “Any remaining after  
> this will be returned to the Executive Secretariat for allocation  
> to other stakeholder groupings.”)
>
>
>
> Plenary meetings:
>
> Taking into consideration the expected number of participants and  
> the participation in the overall process (priority to existing  
> caucuses at previous PrepComs), we tried to attenuate obvious  
> overstatements (Peace Caucus requested 80 overpasses) and obvious  
> understatements (WG on Finance requested only 8 passes) to compile  
> the list enclosed.
>
>

Let me be blunt.

- Who the hell is the Peace caucus. They haven't been active, at  
least not to my knowledge in the WSIS process. No open list, no  
communications from them. For me, as if they didn't exist. As I  
mentioned earlier, if we go with the principle that existing and  
active WG/Caucuses and regions are to be involved then we must follow  
to the letter. No new groups should be able to come and "scoop" up  
passes that should go to those who have planned an ongoing active role.


> The fact that 100 overpasses would be reserved for host country  
> participants is a decision of the WSIS CS, and was in principle  
> accepted by the CSB when discussing overpasses.
>
>
- let me be blunt again:

* WHERE DID YOU COME UP WITH THE 100 PASSES to goto the host country.  
In Geneva at the 03 summit, 100 passes ADDITIONAL PASSES were given  
by the host country to TUNISIA. If we are to follow that principle,  
if anything the host country (Tunisia) should be given 100 passes to  
Switzerland for ITS civil society.

I do not see the need why a new policy needs to be established to  
allocate such a large # of passes to the host country. Switzerland  
DID NOT allocate such a number to it's own civil society at the 03  
summit . Switzerland set  a precedent , thus - the same principle  
should be followed not.

I am very troubled and worried by the suggestion that such a special  
consideration be given to Tunisia.  The idea of setting aside 100 of  
the overpasses for Civil Society for TUNSIAN groups is not something  
i will support. Furthermore, should this idea ever make it to plenary  
it will trigger a very strong reaction. Key governments will be  
notified, and they will be informed that Tunisia again is  
interferring with civil society structures.

Given all the issues we've had with Tunisia and Tunisians to-date,  
who in their right mind suggested this. Did it come from Moncef? Did  
it come from the Tunisian senators on the CSB? I am most worried  
about this...

Argh! This just completely frazzles me. I'm upset at the mere thought  
of this. let me take a step back, and take a deep breath...


Ok. So we have 100 passes to set aside. Ok. let's set them aside not  
FOR Tunisians, but for allocation and distribution IN Tunisia. There  
are many accredited NGOs and civil society who will be coming to the  
Summit for the first time, and they should be given a chance as well  
to participate in the opening.

The principle here should be one of a summit IN Tunisia, and not  
ABOUT Tunisia. The overpass policy should keep this in mind.

that being said, the host country has the prerogative to create more  
overpasses. Switzerland did this in 03, Tunisia can do the same. Any  
"special" requests on or about host countries MUST NOT draw upon the  
pool of passes set aside for civil society. To do so, will be very  
problematic and generate a strong reaction from many NGOs and  
governments.


> We propose to keep 36 passes not to be attributed to any caucus, in  
> order to have some flexibility with new comers or major CS entities  
> which are not actually involved in CS structures. This is further  
> to some concerns expressed to us and on the Plenary list.  
> Guidelines would be made available later on for the distribution of  
> these overpasses. Do you agree with that?
>
>
I DO NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU PROPOSE. PLEASE SEE COMMENTS ABOVE.


-  36 is far too little. In 03, there were some 100 passes set aside  
for "newcomers" at the summit itself. I have over the last many  
months shared many comments on overpasses. Please review that  
correspondence.

- as I have mentioned far too many times, I am more than happy to  
share my experience in how things were done, the challenges that were  
faced, and what an appropriate process could be for the tunis summit..

- There needs to be a clear, transparent and well known process well  
in advance of the summit itself. Ideally, there should be an online  
process where people can submit a request to receive an overpass.  
This process, ideally should be mentioned on the official ITU/WSIS  
page so that it is well known to ALL CS participants .

suggestions:

* an online  registration process similar to the summit registration  
for the summit could be used. This would generate an overpass  
registration #. The ITU should be contacted.

* If the ITU can not help, CPSR (the organization i am accredited to,  
and the focal point for) would be more than happy to offer online  
resources we have for this. Right now, I am using it to process  
requests for people in the North American & European Family. The  
process is simple - just sent and email to wsis at privaterra.org with  
details. A registration # is quickly generated and receipt is given  
to the person. That way, one knows that the request has been received  
and one can track the process. I could, upon request - create an  
online form, that people could use.


These are my comments for now.

I look forward to see my concerns reflected in the next version of  
the overpass policy

regards

Robert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20051021/83febf21/attachment.html