<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2604" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Surely
the real problem with all of this is the issue of who is Civil Society and how
on earth can a small self-selected group such as those who have the time and
resources to attend a two week conference in Geneva "represent" Civil Society in
any meaningful way? </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I'm
not in anyway disparaging the capability or commitment of those who did attend
but only to make the self-evident observation that Civil Society (however it is
defined or constituted) is rather broader and more diverse than what is
represented here and that the real issue remains how to provide a meaningful and
effective voice for this "larger civil society" and some useful process of
legitimation/accountability for those who are able/willing to become
"representatives" for CS in forums such as the WSIS Prepcoms (and
beyond?)!</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>It
seems to me further, that there is a very real danger in the drive towards a
"Multistakeholder" follow-up to WSIS. It seems likely on the basis of
current practice, that t</FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT
face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>his lack of legitimation and representativeness
will in fact be perpetuated in this forum as well, with the result
that the role of Governments as the democratically constituted (and thus
formally "accountable" at least in theory) "representatives" of
citizens are demoted to simply another stakeholder group
(although what their "stakes" might be apart from representing their and their
citizen's interests I'm rather loathe to contemplate); the private sector is of
course "non-accountably" pursuing their interests; and these new CS stakeholders
again without any formal structure of accountability or representativeness
are meant to represent the interests of everyone else.
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Hmmm... Quite honestly, I don't see this as any sort of advance, in fact
given now-fading memories of mid-century European history I see significant
dangers in this type of "multi-faceted" approach to "governance"
issues.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=283053009-04032005><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Mike
Gurstein</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left><FONT
face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>Rik Panganiban<BR><B>Sent:</B> March 4, 2005 3:58 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary]
Re: Communiqué de Presse de la Société Civile<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>Ralf, et
al,<BR><BR>I will take some responsibility for the Press Release as it was
drafted. Adina took on the difficult job of pulling together what input she
received verbally and via email on Thursday and Friday, and worked hard to
integrate it into a single, short press statement over the weekend. I received
an early draft of it and should have alerted her to the problematic nature of
drafting and getting approval for a "civil society press release." Instead I
just word-smithed the draft and sent it back to her.<BR><BR>In retrospect, the
most transparent and inclusive way this could have gone out was for it to
either be simply a compilation of quotes from various sources, i.e.<BR>-
According to Ralf Bendrath of Boell Foundation, "This Prepcom was crap!."
<BR>- Anne-Marie on behalf of the Women's Caucus noted that "This was a
complete waste of time!" <BR>- Rikke of the Human Rights Caucus expressed her
disatisfaction that "our views were ignored" etc. <BR><BR>And then have links
to complete statements somewhere else on the web. Other coalitions and
networks that I have been involved with have compiled press releases in this
fashion. This neatly avoids the need to summarize the "view of civil society,"
which is kind of impossible.<BR><BR>Otherwise this should have gone out simply
as a press release on behalf of the CS "secretariat" of CONGO / ICV / NGLS --
full stop.<BR><BR>My apologies for adding to any breakdown of our processes
and trust. <BR><BR>Rik Panganiban<BR>CONGO<BR><BR>On Mar 3, 2005, at 12:09 PM,
Ralf Bendrath wrote:<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Dear all,<BR><BR>I am also not happy about the press release,
neither on the content nor on the procedural side.<BR><BR>Renata Bloem
schrieb:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>This was not a statement of CONGO.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>But CONGO
wrote it, refined it and sent it out, without any consultation with the
plenary or whomever. Right? Given the fact that the final Content &
Themes meeting where we collected points for Adina to include was on Friday
evening, and the press release only was published on Wednesday, there would
have been enough time to send out a first draft for further confirmation.
That's how we did it before, like at PrepCom3a when I wrote the 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 not at all reflect
the general discussion we 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 especially the
folks who worked hard on financing issues at the Prepcom) are certainly not
"satisfied with the response by governments". Quite the opposite.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE>Adina was asked to make an amalgam of the submissions she had
received. and in order to avoid any misunderstanding / possible conflicts
she decided not to refer to any specific entity / group / caucus, but to
use more a general language <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>That is fine, as long as the
submissions are still somewhere incorporated.<BR><BR>BUT: I find no single
sentence on Human Rights here, though the Human Rights Caucus had sumbitted
language. Nothing on the lack of a Human Rights focus in the summit drafts,
nothing on Tunisia as the host country, nothing on accreditation problems of
NGOs like Human Rights in China. But then it mentions accreditation problems
in WIPO. Why?<BR><BR>And most of the press release is applauding the
improvements in the multi-stakeholder process. But were there really any? We
had our usual 15 minutes a day like we had two years ago. On the last day we
did not even get these. The improvement is only on the substance side: They
listen to us, because they either have no clue and need our input, or they
have learned to take us serious. So, if we want to applaud anybody for the
bigger impact we might have had during this PrepCom, it should be ourselves.
BTW: Empirical research done on WSIS phase one suggests that CS impact is
bigger in the early stages and gets smaller and smaller towards the end,
when all that counts is the government's agreement.<BR><BR>So, to me, this
press release looks like somebody (if not CONGO, then who else?) wants to
play extremely nice and by doing this is silencing all more outspoken and
critical voices in civil society. Fine with me if some groups want to do
this, but then they can't claim to speak for all civil society.<BR><BR>I
totally agree with Renata: We are lacking a clear press structure and really
should work on it for PrepCom3.<BR><BR>But while we don't have an agreed
structure, things like these have to be done the most careful and inclusive
way. And that normally includes a feedback loop on the plenary list, even
more if there are a few days of time. Otherwise, we get a PR disaster like
this and enlarge the divides between different groups of civil society in
the
WSIS.<BR><BR>Ralf<BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE><?fontfamily><?param Arial>===============================================<BR>RIK
PANGANIBAN Communications Coordinator<BR>Conference of NGOs in Consultative
Relationship with the United Nations (CONGO) <BR>web:
http://www.ngocongo.org<BR>email: rik.panganiban@ngocongo.org<BR>mobile: (+1)
917-710-5524 <?/fontfamily><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>