<P><BR>I fully suport your suggestion, Lisa, and thank you for mailing it to the CS plenary </P>
<P>Best regards</P>
<P>Jean-Louis Fullsack</P>
<P>CSDPTT<BR><BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid">> Message du 04/03/05 17:32<BR>> De : "lisa mclaughlin" <MCLAUGLM@PO.MUOHIO.EDU><BR>> A : plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> Copie à : <BR>> Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] What's going on ? "CS" Press release and "CS"-Private sector joint statement<BR>> <BR>> If the supposed "joint statement" of CS and the <BR>> PS is allowed to remain on the ITU web site, let <BR>> me suggest the following:<BR>> <BR>> 1. that those of us who do not wish to be <BR>> bedfellows with the CCBI write our own statement <BR>> disassociating ourselves from the "joint <BR>> statement"<BR>> <BR>> 2. that we circulate it for individual endorsements<BR>> <BR>> 3. and that we insist that it be included amongst <BR>> the documents submitted by Observers.<BR>> <BR>> As well, perhaps it is time to do some CS <BR>> stocktaking instead of taking part in an ITU <BR>> exercise that seems to suffer amnesia in respect <BR>> to the fact that CS did not endorse the official <BR>> Declaration or Plan of Action.<BR>> <BR>> Regards,<BR>> <BR>> Lisa<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> At 7:17 PM +0100 3/3/05, Meryem Marzouki wrote:<BR>> >Dear all,<BR>> ><BR>> >1/ I fully support the concerns on the "CS" <BR>> >press release raised by Ralf hereafter, and <BR>> >previously by Jean-Louis and Rikke.<BR>> ><BR>> >2/ I've found on ITU web site, in the list of <BR>> >documents submitted by Observers, a document <BR>> >called "25 February 2005 - Observers (Business <BR>> >Sector and Civil Society): Joint statement on <BR>> >behalf of Civil Society Plenary and the <BR>> >Coordination Committee of Business <BR>> >Interlocutors" <BR>> >(http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc2/subcommittee/Jointcs-ccbi.html).<BR>> >There have been concerns raised on this plenary <BR>> >list by organizations who asked for individual <BR>> >endorsements by organizations, rather than <BR>> >attributing this statement to CS as a whole.<BR>> >Who took the responsability to submit it to ITU <BR>> >secretariat to have it on the website, thus <BR>> >ignoring the plenary ?<BR>> ><BR>> >It is too late to withdraw the "CS" press <BR>> >release, since no one from CS had the <BR>> >opportunity to comment on a draft.<BR>> >But it is still time to ask for the so-called <BR>> >"Joint statement on behalf of Civil Society <BR>> >Plenary and the Coordination Committee of <BR>> >Business Interlocutors" to be removed from ITU <BR>> >website, and that its promoters look for <BR>> >endorsements by individual organizations.<BR>> ><BR>> >I'm really wondering what's going on with CS at WSIS II...<BR>> ><BR>> >Best regards,<BR>> >Meryem Marzouki<BR>> >--<BR>> >Meryem Marzouki - http://www.iris.sgdg.org<BR>> >IRIS - Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire<BR>> >294 rue de Charenton - 75012 Paris<BR>> >Tel/Fax. +33(0)144749239<BR>> ><BR>> >Le jeudi, 3 mars 2005, à 18:09 Europe/Paris, Ralf Bendrath a écrit :<BR>> ><BR>> >>Dear all,<BR>> >><BR>> >>I am also not happy about the press release, <BR>> >>neither on the content nor on the procedural <BR>> >>side.<BR>> >><BR>> >>Renata Bloem schrieb:<BR>> >>>This was not a statement of CONGO.<BR>> >>But CONGO wrote it, refined it and sent it out, <BR>> >>without any consultation with the plenary or <BR>> >>whomever. Right? Given the fact that the final <BR>> >>Content & Themes meeting where we collected <BR>> >>points for Adina to include was on Friday <BR>> >>evening, and the press release only was <BR>> >>published on Wednesday, there would have been <BR>> >>enough time to send out a first draft for <BR>> >>further confirmation. That's how we did it <BR>> >>before, like at PrepCom3a when I wrote the <BR>> >>final CS press statement.<BR>> >><BR>> >>> In fact we have not submitted a single sentence to it.<BR>> >>But who wrote it then? The press release does <BR>> >>not at all reflect the general discussion we <BR>> >>had on the state of the process etc.<BR>> >><BR>> >> "Despite some concerns about WSIS "losing its vision" and "moving away<BR>> >> from the Geneva Declaration track", civil society entities were<BR>> >> generally satisfied with the response by governments to their efforts in<BR>> >> making the peoples' voices heard in "bridging the digital divide"."<BR>> >><BR>> >>Here I fully agree with Jean-Louis: We (any <BR>> >>especially the folks who worked hard on <BR>> >>financing issues at the Prepcom) are certainly <BR>> >>not "satisfied with the response by <BR>> >>governments". Quite the opposite.<BR>> >><BR>> >>>Adina was asked to make an amalgam of the <BR>> >>>submissions she had received. and in order to <BR>> >>>avoid any misunderstanding / possible <BR>> >>>conflicts she decided not to refer to any <BR>> >>>specific entity / group / caucus, but to use <BR>> >>>more a general language<BR>> >>That is fine, as long as the submissions are still somewhere incorporated.<BR>> >><BR>> >>BUT: I find no single sentence on Human Rights <BR>> >>here, though the Human Rights Caucus had <BR>> >>sumbitted language. Nothing on the lack of a <BR>> >>Human Rights focus in the summit drafts, <BR>> >>nothing on Tunisia as the host country, nothing <BR>> >>on accreditation problems of NGOs like Human <BR>> >>Rights in China. But then it mentions <BR>> >>accreditation problems in WIPO. Why?<BR>> >><BR>> >>And most of the press release is applauding the <BR>> >>improvements in the multi-stakeholder process. <BR>> >>But were there really any? We had our usual 15 <BR>> >>minutes a day like we had two years ago. On the <BR>> >>last day we did not even get these. The <BR>> >>improvement is only on the substance side: They <BR>> >>listen to us, because they either have no clue <BR>> >>and need our input, or they have learned to <BR>> >>take us serious. So, if we want to applaud <BR>> >>anybody for the bigger impact we might have had <BR>> >>during this PrepCom, it should be ourselves. <BR>> >>BTW: Empirical research done on WSIS phase one <BR>> >>suggests that CS impact is bigger in the early <BR>> >>stages and gets smaller and smaller towards the <BR>> >>end, when all that counts is the government's <BR>> >>agreement.<BR>> >><BR>> >>So, to me, this press release looks like <BR>> >>somebody (if not CONGO, then who else?) wants <BR>> >>to play extremely nice and by doing this is <BR>> >>silencing all more outspoken and critical <BR>> >>voices in civil society. Fine with me if some <BR>> >>groups want to do this, but then they can't <BR>> >>claim to speak for all civil society.<BR>> >><BR>> >>I totally agree with Renata: We are lacking a <BR>> >>clear press structure and really should work on <BR>> >>it for PrepCom3.<BR>> >><BR>> >>But while we don't have an agreed structure, <BR>> >>things like these have to be done the most <BR>> >>careful and inclusive way. And that normally <BR>> >>includes a feedback loop on the plenary list, <BR>> >>even more if there are a few days of time. <BR>> >>Otherwise, we get a PR disaster like this and <BR>> >>enlarge the divides between different groups of <BR>> >>civil society in the WSIS.<BR>> >><BR>> >>Ralf<BR>> >>_______________________________________________<BR>> >>Plenary mailing list<BR>> >>Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> >>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> >><BR>> ><BR>> >_______________________________________________<BR>> >Plenary mailing list<BR>> >Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Plenary mailing list<BR>> Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>