<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 9/27/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Vittorio Bertola</b> <<a href="mailto:vb@bertola.eu.org">vb@bertola.eu.org</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>I understand the<br>practical reasoning behind the idea of only allowing accredited<br>organizations to be full participants in civil society, and denying
<br>individuals and non-accredited organizations the right to vote in the<br>plenary. At the same time, I find it incredibly hard to accept.<br><br>To me, this looks like a defeat. We could have tried to embrace<br>something more innovative and forward-looking, rather than creating a sort
<br>of mockery of the governmental procedures, creating a second league of<br>"onlookers" ... I would rather have conceived the Plenary as a free assembly of women and men, each equal to<br>each other, and discussed separately how to certify the identity of each
<br>participant, and avoid capture.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<p>I strongly support this concern. </p>
<p>After all, civil society consists of people who care, who are active and responsible, not of organizations. To give full membership to accredited CS organization _only_ would totally undermine the whole idea of global participation. Then the CSP should better be called NGOs Plenary or CSOs Plenary – not Civil Society Plenary.
</p>
<p>The deficiencies of any accreditation procedure is not a secret for anybody. Why should those who care seek affiliation with the accredited entities that perhaps do not even reflect their position? Why to deny the individuals the right to act as independent members of the society? (actually it is not a question but an opinion that this outcome is wrong)
</p>
<p></p>
<p>Yulia</p></div><br> </div>