[CS Bureau] Cluster WSIS events & Bureau meetings in May
Dr. Francis MUGUET
muguet at wtis.org
Thu Apr 19 12:30:18 BST 2007
Dear Adam and the CSB members
> At 4:10 AM +0200 4/16/07, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
>
>> Dear members of the Bureau
>>
>> We have to get back to work. !!!
>
>
>
> Francis,
>
> There is no civil society bureau. It's dead and gone and has no work
> to do.
Your undiplomatic wording is very surprising.
The Civil Society Bureau is still alive, and is considered as a
respected partner by governements.
and International Organizations.
Last year, in Paris, for the Action Lines meeting at UNESCO,
Adama Samassékou was quite clear and encouraging on this topic.
> The "families" dissolved at the end of the Tunis Summit.
There were no such decisions that were taken or recorded.
Only the Asian family representative did send an email to the CSB list
in this regards to the CSB list,
but it appeared this was done without consultation with the members of
the Asia & Pacific
family, as my south Koreans friends revealed and strongly opposed.
I guess the Asia & Pacific representative
resigned. Therefore the CSB has to make a call in this regards.
Concerning the North American family, from the top of my head, there was
no such message
from Robert Guerra, although he called for the end of the CSB.
He was not followed by other CSB members and he resigned from the list.
I guess that the CSB has also to make a call in this regards.
The African family is quite active with Delphine !,
and the European family is represented by Georg Greve.
> There was some attempt last year to see if new mechanisms were
> necessary but no response. Calls for civil society meetings (plenary)
> have been met with minimal interest.
again this is not true, you are only focused on the IGF. The Geneva
plan of action is
not, seemingly, within the scope of your interests.
There were plenary meetings, each evening, during the action lines
meetings at UNESCO,
last year. You were absent to this meetings, so get a little more
informed before
making premature judgements.
> I can think of no better example of this than the IGF in Athens when I
> gave you 5 overpasses for the opening ceremony for you to distribute
> to your group only to find that you had failed to do so and I had to
> find extra for at least one of "your" people. You didn't know who your
> "family" was!
>
Your example is pathetic and menial ! . I simply could not find some
people in the crowd !.
We had no offices as rally points for each family, as in Geneva and
Tunis, demonstrating the
poor preparation of the meeting concerning the welcome of Civil Society,
when
the CSB is not involved in the preparation ot the meeting.
This is a point that should be addressed in Rio.
This overpass thing was a really a matter of a minor importance, and
turned to
be a non-issue, since they were not needed.
This let me ask you the question why you were appointed as the person
in charge of overpasses in Athens. ?
I heard Robert Guerra complained bitterly about this.
> I strongly believe that the regional grouping should be maintained,
> they clearly continue to work and are important in bringing essential
> views and people to the process, whether WSIS action lines or IGF.
OK, good
> But the rest either exist on their own merits (the human rights caucus
> continues to function, just as it did before WSIS, the Internet
> governance caucus continues to try to contribute in its area of
> interest. I know you and others are doing work in education etc. Good
> luck to us all.)
>
OK
> CONGO continues to do a magnificent job acting as a link between other
> stakeholders and helping the rest of us keep informed and able to
> participate. By their example and standing in the community, CONGO
> deservedly plays a leadership role in civil society.
>
This is not question of leadership, your analysis is biased, you are
analyzing
everything in terms of governance, as for the internet !, within Civil
Society.
CONGO, is doing a magnificent job as the executive secretariat of the
CSB, at the
service of the Civil Society.
Without its mandate within the CSB, CONGO would have no legitmacy to
negotiate on behalf of the whole CS, to obtain better status and
procedural access
for the whole CS with all concerned IGOs.
You have not been neither at the various ECOSOC and CSTD meetings, therefore
you are not able to fully appreciate the role of the CSB in those meetings.
The WSIS executive secretariat and now the ECOSOC/UNCTAD for WSIS
secretariat
was/is interfacing with the various CSB members concering the
recognition of the
WSIS practises ( now on line ) and the dates of some action line meetings.
> My suggestion
personnal suggestion ? or in the name of some groupings ?
> would be for CONGO to maintain good contact with regional groups, and
> to use them to receive and share information. The rest of us should
> get on best we can.
This is clearly an amateur approach, and I quite surprise that you
could advocate
such a approach.
> Sharing information when we can.
clearly amateur
> The plenary list still works, it is mainly spam
yes, I know, same for other wsis lists,
because the name has been haversted by spammers, this
is unrelated to the issue.
> (I administer the list)
thanks
> but it is there if we need it, it still has many subscribers from WSIS.
so good
>
> Francis, can't you simply represent your own organization when talking
> to UNESCO?
This would represent a severe step backward for Civil Society and it
would not work.
Last year, I was able to secure rooms for plenary meetings at UNESCO in
the name of
the CSB. It is not sure I would have able to get them in the name of my
instittution,
or in the name of the Edu & Academia CSB family, neither in the name of
the 2 working groups
I coordinate or co-coordinate.
Anyway, it was very good move for CS in front of the other stakeholders :
States and Business., which is very well organized and to continue to
do so with
the very same team.
You did not seem to understand how UNESCO works. I live at a walking
distance
from UNESCO, and I going there very often.
For that matter, proximity helps: CONGO offices are just located at the
gates of the UN.
> What you ask for from them makes perfect sense,
you know that perfect sense is not always enough !
> it won't sound any more sensible if you claim to have the backing of
> some extinct organization. You already provide us with more
> information from the WSIS follow-up than any other individual. Just
> carry on.
I don't like to analyze things as invidual things. This is a fragile
situation.
I have lots of info from UNESCO as a de facto UNESCO CSB liaison officer,
but this "position" can be easily replaced by Divina or Djilali ( CSB
members in Paris) if
the need arises..
You must realize that that people in International Organzations,
Governements
cannot give special treatment to a specific invidual concerning
procedural issues,
unless this invidual is a member of a recognized body, and hence comes
the need of the
CSB concerning the overall follow-up,
or the MAG concerning the convening of the IGF.
Since you are a proud ( http://www.glocom.ac.jp ) member of the MAG,
I guess you understand.
I believe it is the same situation with UNCTAD, ITU, and others IGOs
with the CONGO and
the CSB.
Concering issues of subtance, this is entirely different, susbtance
should be judged upon its own
merrit, independently of the status of the author.
> And think you. But in your search for the bureau you are looking for
> something that has ceased to exist. It has no role anymore. We don't
> need it.
>
We need also the CSB concerning Human Right issues.
For example, in Hammamet, the inter-bureau meeting was crucial to defuse
the issue. I cannot give details of this meeting, because this is still
a very sensitive issue, but the coordinated tactics of the CSB,
the very strong speeches ( in content, yet with diplomatic wordings ) of
Renate and Divina ( women are best in times of crisis :-) ! ) were
crucial to solve the issue to the benefits of Civil Society.
Lastly, the Iranian Civil Society got problems in Iran, Amir,
a member of the CSB, and many times, a chair of the CSB meetings,
turned to the CSB for help, and also claimed
his CSB membership as a protection towards local authorities.
I know that CSB exec. secret. has been quietly contacting the iranian
delegates in Geneva ( who are very nice persons, and by the way,
they did implicitely support CS in Hammamet... ). May be Philippe could
brief us a little bit about those efforts, unless this is not possible
for diplomatic reasons.
If these efficient diplomatic efforts would fail, then the CSB
could write a letter to the delegation to be transmitted
through diplomatic channels to the Iranian government.
An open letter from WSIS CS should be a tool of last resort,
because the Iranian goverment might not cede publicly,
for fear of losing its face.
I must mention that in Geneva, there was a case, with a very
powerfull country, that these kind of efforts were very efficient
and fruitfull to save a person and his family from prison and
even worse. My lips are absolutely sealed on this because
this was part of the deal. I only mention this, because deleting the CSB
would be a case of conscience by deleting a tool of defense for CS.
Last but not least, we need the CSB also concerning financial support.
You might not be sensitive to this issue, since most members of the
Internet Community
like you are well financed, but this is not the case of many members of
Civil Society
that have been involved in the WSIS since the first phase, and now
feel abandonned, forgotten ( eg like Tracy and others ) in the crucial
follow-up phase.
The Finish ambassador made it clear
that he does not want to give preferential status to any NGO concerning
the distribution of the
funds that EU could get for CS, and the EU would not get into the
selection details.
it is exactly what happenned durng the WSIS summit phases, the CSB
executive
secretariat decided together with ITU who should be a recipient of
financial help.
(To clarify things, I was never involved in those selections and I was
never a recipient of any ITU aid. )
Now that many aspects of the unadvertised work of the CSB, has been
made aware to you, I guess that you would certainly acknowledge
all the reasons why we need the CSB.
Thanks for your understanding.
Francis
PS :
If you feel that the Internet Community is not represented in the
current Bureau,
and if your motives, as an Internet Community member, is to prevent the
continuation of a body that could play a role in the Bureau as mentionned
in the WSIS governance texts, then let me suggest you
to kindly consider, before waging a civil war of destruction, another
more peaceful solution :
It is understood that the MAG has only a mission of convening the IGF,
ie bringing people
to come to the first meeting of the IGF, and the MAG could be dissolved
soon.
This was clear in the reply of Nitin Desai to the question of Robert Guerra,
in the preparatory meeting last year. ( Transcripts are really useful ... ).
Therefore it is naturally bringing a strong sense of anxiety
among its members about their futures.
A further overall context of crisis is that
ICANN is experiencing serious difficulties
and is even considering to setlle to Geneva, as you are well aware
( http://uk.theinquirer.net/?article=38703 ).
Personnally, as a CSB member, I would not see any objection, as requested
in fact during the various IGF preparation meetings, that the Internet
Community
be recognized as yet another distinct stakeholder.
Therefore bringing four classes of stakeholders :
Governements, Business, Civil Society, and Internet Community.
This would need inclusive discussions that could start now on the CSB
list and elsewhere.
It has been claimed that the current MAG is in fact representing the
internet community ( see the illuminating analysis by
Dr; Milton Mueller :
The Forum MAG: Who Are These People?
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/18/226205&mode=thread> (
May 18 2006)
http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/18/226205&mode=thread )
In this context, the non-govermental members of the current MAG, could
become, with a more permanent mission, the members of an
Internet Community Bureau for the whole duration of the follow-up
until at least a tentatively explored WSIS+10 meeting;
In fact , there is an exploratory confidential proposal in that direction
that is currently circulating among
various goverments and international organizations.
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> 1/ So far, concerning invitation letters that many of
>> us need to have to be able attend the cluster Week.
>> either for Visa, travel application and funding.
>> The invitations letters are available only for
>> Action Line C5 Facilitation Meeting ( 14-15 May 2007
>> action lines C2, C4, and C6 ( 16 May 2007
>> Informal consultation between ITU and CS 18 May 2007
>> Second consultation meeting of WSIS Action Line Facilitators
>> 25 may 2007
>> UNESCO has not prepared yet any invitation letter.
>>
>> Could CONGO as the Bureau executive secretariat inquire
>> with ECOSOC, or ITU, or UNCTAD ( as the de facto
>> WSIS executive secretariat ) about the possibility
>> to make available a global
>> invitation letter covering the two weeks in Geneva.
>> This would simplify greatly visa application for
>> some, and bureaucracy for all of us.
>>
>> 2/ The e-science action line should occur on Monday 14 May.
>> This is to be confirmed.
>> There are long multi-stakeholder negotiations
>> to find a convenient date when all major stakeholders
>> could attend.
>>
>> 3/ As I did last year, for the action lines meetings in Paris,
>> may I act as the Bureau liaison officer with UNESCO ?
>> to speed up things concerning procedural issues,
>> eg Letters of invitations, and terms of references.
>>
>> I have been working closely with the Science4D division
>> to get updated terms of references,
>> and Working Methods of the Multi-stakeholders Team
>> concerning the e-science action line
>> ( not yet on http://www.wsis-si.org/unesco.html,
>> since I waiting to UNESCO science divsion to have them posted )
>> These are very important procedural documents,
>> and it would be good to discuss the procedures concerning
>> the other action lines. This should a topic of discussion
>> of a bureau meeting.
>>
>> Procedural issues are going to quite important in this
>> cluster week, specifically with ECOSOC, UNCTAD, UNESCO, ITU
>> with the new secretary general, to determine the
>> participation of Civil Society.
>>
>> 4/ It seems that we need to hold a Bureau Meeting in
>> Geneva in May to discuss about the reform of the Bureau,
>> or at the very least, fill the vacant seats for
>> various families in order to stay inclusive.
>> CONGO need to be confirmed as the executive secretariat
>> of the WSIS CS Bureau to be able to continue to negotiate
>> ( they are doing a terrific job ) ) procedural issues
>> for the sake of the whole CS ( not just with ECOSOC ).
>>
>> 5/ We might hold 2 Bureau meetings, one at the beginning
>> of the cluster week, Monday 14 or Tuesday 15,
>> to assess the current situation,
>> and let people start to discuss in Geneva and elsewhere, and one
>> at the end on Friday 25.
>>
>> Do we ask families to send short reports as we
>> did for the CapeTown meeting in order to list the
>> active familie ?
>>
>> We should start discussions on all those topics without delays.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Francis
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D
>> World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)
>> muguet at wtis.org
>>
>> UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
>>
>> World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
>> Civil Society Working Groups
>> Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair
>> Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
>> Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web
>>
>> Director
>> Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
>> Knowledge Networks and Information Society
>> ENSTA
>> 32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
>> Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19 Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82
>> muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
>>
>> MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
>> Associate Publisher
>> http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net
>> muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bureau mailing list
>> Bureau at wsis-cs.org
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bureau mailing list
> Bureau at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francis F. Muguet Ph.D
WTIS World Tour of the Information Society
http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org
Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS)
http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr
75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE
(33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82
MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher
http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net
WSIS World Summit on the Information Society
Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org
Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org
Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20070419/d0e4ed0b/attachment.htm
More information about the Bureau
mailing list