<P>Dear members of the CS plenary list</P>
<P>I always see "fexibility" as a regression in worker's rights and even as human dramas, as far as it is mentioned by business end entrepreneurs. </P>
<P>Therefore this conception should be the starting point for a "real CS" to be considered.</P>
<P>BTW, Michel Jordan asked what "real CS" is : it is first all those organisations working in the field and near to their people and sharing their concerns, in other words it is a cluster of grassroot organisations. Second, it is also (for obvious reasons) representing all those who cannot afford to pay trips to Geneva and staying there. But it certainly isn't the "jet set CS" our fellow Armin Murmann mentioned during phase 1 of the WSIS. </P>
<P>And since we are mentioning "grassroots" : I support the "Grassroot Caucus" in both its name and its representativity. </P>
<P>Jean-Louis Fullsack</P>
<P>CSDPTT-France . <BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #ff0000 2px solid">> Message du 26/05/05 14:15<BR>> De : "Hervé Le Crosnier" <HERVE@INFO.UNICAEN.FR><BR>> A : plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> Copie à : <BR>> Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four of Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents<BR>> <BR>> karen banks wrote:<BR>> > dear all,<BR>> > <BR>> > passing this on at Ayesha Hassan's request.<BR>> > <BR>> <BR>> Good morning, (sorry, only my poor english, cause<BR>> i ain't got enough time to translate... and more<BR>> i hate machine-translation, as far as i can read<BR>> english, spanish and french, i never recognize anything<BR>> when i read machine translation :-(((<BR>> <BR>> First, i think that circulating documents is not<BR>> approving them, may be even it's sometime quite<BR>> the contrary. So thank you Karen for circulating<BR>> this one and its preceding version. As far as I beleive that<BR>> CCBI vision is opposite to mine, something i see<BR>> for my experience of reading their papers, i'm always<BR>> interessed to have a look at their views, to prepare<BR>> my answers.<BR>> <BR>> Second, it's really troubling to look at what they<BR>> pretend to be a mistake. Is the cut-and-paste error<BR>> becoming a diplomatic apology, as incredible as it<BR>> can be.<BR>> <BR>> The paragraph they get off is the one talking about<BR>> "flexibility" they see as inherent to the working<BR>> fare of the information society. I write a paper<BR>> on the first version, highlithing exactly this paragraph.<BR>> This message circulated on this list, but was in french only,<BR>> so may be no one read it :-((<BR>> <BR>> Now, the paragraph, and the fact that CCBI get it off,<BR>> can be read two ways :<BR>> - flexibility is inherent, so we need to impose it, and<BR>> for that objective, we need to contact with representative<BR>> organisations of workers (that was my reading, and i<BR>> fear that this "negociation" with only one way out<BR>> will be the model for the years to come)<BR>> - flexibility is such an important issue that it's even<BR>> not necessary to compell with any "negociation". Worse<BR>> isn't it ?<BR>> <BR>> How do CS negociators interpret this ?<BR>> <BR>> What i fear is that supporting "multistakholderism" could<BR>> drive us blind to the meaning of the wordings on each<BR>> "stakehholder" party. I can support multistakholderism<BR>> as far as it is a way to clarify objectives, even contradictory,<BR>> and to engage in a governance negciations where positions<BR>> of grassroot bodies can be heard. If it's only a new way<BR>> to write obfuscated discourses to drown the fishes, i won't<BR>> be able to follow such a looser way to deal with problems of the<BR>> information society.<BR>> <BR>> The incredible manner of CCBI to put and then to get off<BR>> paragraphs, arguing of "cut-and-paste" is not a good signal...<BR>> <BR>> But the most important is to talk about such "flexibility"<BR>> mecanism in the information society, and to have a CS view on<BR>> this. Trade Union offer some highlights on this during the<BR>> Geneva phase. We have to look deeper at this.<BR>> <BR>> Hervé Le Crosnier<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > regards<BR>> > karen<BR>> > <BR>> >> Subject: CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four of <BR>> >> Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents<BR>> >> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:25:46 +0200<BR>> >> From: "HASSAN Ayesha" <AYESHA.HASSAN@ICCWBO.ORG><BR>> <BR>> >> Dear Wolfgang, Bertrand, Renate and Karen,<BR>> >><BR>> >> A mistake was found and corrected in the text of the previous version <BR>> >> of the CCBI input that I sent to you on 19 May.<BR>> >> And the cut and paste of the full ILO, OECD, UNCTAD comments which <BR>> >> included a proposed new [new 6k4.] k4. was not deleted in the drafting <BR>> >> process.<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Plenary mailing list<BR>> Plenary@wsis-cs.org<BR>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary<BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE>