<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>We must engage in dialogue, be able to communicate
better.</title></head><body>
<div>Renate:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>sigh !</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Am I not clear enough, need I go into more details...sigh!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At the cape town meeting several items where discussed, and it
was - implied - that further comments and/or details would be
forthcoming from those involved. Those items include, but are
not limited to the following:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>* DETAILS - on :</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>a. the agreement on how the CSB secretariat as presented
(on the very last day in cape town, and in the last minutes of the
meeting) is being envisioned.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As you may remember, Ann-Kristin Håkansson and I expressed
shock at the way the announcement of the CSB secretariat was made.
Obviously it wasn't something that developed and came into being all
of the sudden - likely, it was well known before the cape town
meeting and should have been mentioned the first day we where all
there.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This would have given us time all to comment - and would have
given at least the impression that our voices, our comments count for
everything</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Again, Ann-Kristin, myself and others - were surprised, actually
quite shocked that time had been taken to - write a proposal,
speak to funders, and obtain funding, all without a word to the bureau
list. Worse still, when funding had been obtained it would have been
seen as appropriate to open the "new job opportunity" to
an audience that has been involved in the wsis process.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Other organizations and structures that exist in the wsis process
such as the CRIS, the youth caucus, the gender caucus, GKP and many
others - have posted their announcements, their "recruiting
for paid people" to the list - why was this not done in this
case? Is it that the person being funding needs to come from a certain
organization? Despite "reputation" your organization might
have - doing all this almost in secret , is not consistent with the
policies put forward by CS in the WSIS process of inclusion, openness
and transparency.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>To me what appears to have happened is that a virtually unknown
person , unknown to the wsis process has been hired. They will have to
spend time to learn things, find out about people, topics and learn
the network. But TIME is something we don't have - we need to get
started, to hit the road running to get things done</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>The reply you back to me with, the high level outline on what the
person will be doing , in my opinion still very, very general. To be
honest, i expected more details. if this is to be the only paid person
- i think that it's way too much for the person to do. Are the
items prioritized in one way or another? is there a set of objectives
to follow, of timelines to meet?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Perhaps you think these are too many questions - but, i think i
have the right to ask. If - as was stated at the cs bureau meeting -
that the "staff" person is seconded to the CSB, then CSB
members should be able to ask questions ,contribute comments and be
actively engaged in preperations.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>If the person is - NOT seconded to the CSB, then please -
do let us know, as it is the assumption the rest of us are operating
under.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>b. Bureau Reform - we mentioned that inactive focal points would
be cut and the bureau size reduced.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>This is related to Adam's earlier message also about reform and
working methods ...</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There has been no news, no updates, no discussion - has nothing
changed ?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>if there are details - then would be good to know</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>c. Several offers have been made to the bureau in regards to
resources to use to help improve communications and
documentation.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>- Website:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Ramin mentioned something related to a website offer. I
have posted several messages to that effect as well. where are we
going with this?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>- Virtual Discussion:</div>
<div>There was a kind offer by Derrick to help with virtual
participation. A message was sent around to accept his offer. Derrick
is back next week - would be good to give him the bureau's green light
to proceed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>d. Working Methods</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Several questions where referred to the working methods group
created at the Berlin meeting in November. That group is quite active,
and it would be good if at least a few other bureau members
participated in that discussion.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>e. Travel issues</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>As you recall, concern was raised about how to respond to issues
related to states that might pursue a policy of infringing on the
human rights of CS involved in the WSIS process.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Does the bureau wish to act in this regards, or would it not be
more effective to ask the human rights caucus to deal with the
issue?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>f. Funding</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>PrepCom 2 is coming and there is no news on additional funding
that may be available (in addition to the ITU travel fund) that CS
members might be able to apply for.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>g. Political Issues</div>
<div><br></div>
<div> A much thornier and problematic topic that was also
discussed in Cape Town is the one of a "political head" for
the CSB.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>There were grave concerns also expressed about the issues - both
past, and present related to this topic. There was a commitment to
develop a procedure, a process on how to mitigate and deal with this
in the future. But - nothing has been discussed...Perhaps it's too
early? perhaps a decision has already been made? not knowing - is
what's worse.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In summary,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Like I have mentioned earlier , but in simpler terms - the amount
of detailed information many of us thought would be forthcoming
is not coming. Communication - real communication and discussion
between bureau members, to be honest leaves a lot to be desired.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Making a quick phone call, chatting online , and/or other
numerous methods - ie. ICTs... - could be used to improve the
situation - that they are not is troubling. Given the subject matter
of the UN process we are involved in - the information society -
any lack of information gives the impression that a concerned policy
of concealment is in place.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I would recommend that a key item for us to purse in the
immediate next couple of days is to try to schedule an online
discussion - perhaps even an online chat - to follow-up on the key
questions left unanswered at the Cape town meeting. I would like to
have something organized in this regard by next week (19th jan). I
don't think it is unreasonable.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>To wrap up, I would like recall a quote that Adama Samessekou
made at the Cape Town meeting:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><i>"We have have concerns, suspicions, and animosity between
each other. However, the more that we have worked side-by-side
together, the more that we have been building human relations.
...</i></div>
<div><i><br></i></div>
<div><i>We have to combat rumors. We don't want people to be
able to able to point fingers, and say that they are not represented.
We must say what we think, and do what we say. If there are
misunderstandings. Dialogue can resolve all "</i></div>
<div><i><br></i></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 1:16 PM +0100 1/12/05, Renata Bloem wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Robert,</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I sent below once more the note from
5.January with some additions. Adina will then be in contact with all
of you and send a provisional state of art of logistics for PC2, as
well as a report on the GFC meeting. We need now to constructively
work together, particularly after decisions made at Cape
Town.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Best</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Renata</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> </blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<x-sigsep><pre>--
</pre></x-sigsep>
<div>###<br>
Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org><br>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org></div>
</body>
</html>