<div>Dear all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>We knew this designation problem would happen and we are on the verge of being trapped into it. We must at all costs avoid getting further into an divisive discussion among ourselves, based on a sort of supreme right of each caucus to have a speaking slot. This cannot happen and we know it.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So, how can we move forward ? (I only address here the question of Plenary Speakers - the question of the opening slot is a completely different matter)</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are three key elements/objectives to keep in mind :</div>
<div>- civil society should be recognized the right to designate who speaks on behalf of civil society in Tunis : this means it should demonstrate it can make such choices (otherwise, we'll be back to the Geneva situation and lose a critical opportunity)
</div>
<div>- civil society wants some key messages to be heard by governments and must be clear about what they are (ie : we should structure and prioritize them)</div>
<div>- civil society wants to put in practice as much as possible gender, geographic and competence balance in its representation</div>
<div> </div>
<div>If I am not mistaken, the process we put in place during PrepCom3 led to the designation of 22 plenary speakers. But, even in the best case scenario, according to the documents circulated at the begining of the process, there will be a maximum of 14 or 15 civil society plenary speakers. And the executive secretariat will necessarily want to put a few people of its own. This means we need to shorten the list even further. So, at best, we will get 10 slots in the end. If civil society wants to be able to claim it chose its speakers and not leave it to the secretariat as last time, the best solution would be to :
</div>
<div>- ask for 10 slots we will allocate ourselves without interference from the Secretariat (establishing CS right to designate people who will speak on its behalf)</div>
<div>- choose ten key themes we want to put forward at the Summit (and define them collectively)</div>
<div>- select (ideally within the present list of nominees established by the selection Committte), a group of ten speakers able to carry these themes, respecting gender and geographical balance </div>
<div> </div>
<div>What could be the main priority messages <u>for the Summit</u> ? I propose we start with the following list of 10 themes and try to refine it further (themes are in no particular order) :</div>
<ul>
<li><strong>The Information Society is based on Freedom of Expression and Information</strong> : the Internet is a key instrument/space for freedom of expression and information, and this should be protected and guaranteed (key Caucuses involved : Human Rights, Media, ...)
</li>
<li><strong>The Information Society requires Universal Access</strong> : participation in the Information Society is impossible if the infrastructure is not developped enough, including electricity, interconnexion costs, backbones and exchange points, telecentres (Key Caucuses : Telecentres, others ?)
</li>
<li><strong>The Information Society must be inclusive and development-oriented</strong> : gender balance; special efforts towards economically, geographically or socially marginalized groups, including indigenous communities; specific design architectures to facilitate use by people with disabilities; special needs of children and the elderly; promotion of multilingualism, including internationalized domain names (Key Caucuses : Gender, Indigenous, Persons with disabilities, Cultural diversity, ...)
</li>
<li><strong>The Information Society depends upon Education and Capacity-Building</strong> to be inclusive (Key Caucuses : Education and Academia, Scientific Information WG, ...)</li>
<li><strong>The Information Society requires new legal frameworks for Intellectual productions and creations</strong> : see creative commons, free/open source software, open access (Key Caucuses : Patents and Trademarks WG, Scientific Information WG, ...)
</li>
<li><strong>The Information Society should be based on trust more than control</strong> : cyber-security is not only about censorship and police but also about creating trust, securing the infrastructure and protecting privacy, towards a true Digital Citizenship (Key Caucuses : Privacy and Security, Human Rights, ...)
</li>
<li><strong>The Information Society is built at the grassroots level</strong>, and not only by governments and international organizations : local actors and in particular local authorities have a key role to play (see Bilbao summit) (Key Caucuses : Local Authorities, Grassroots, Volunteers, Values and Ethics, ...)
</li>
<li><strong>Internet is a Global Facility</strong> : Internet Governance is the shared responsibility of all stakeholders and time has come to define the proper roles of all actors, including governments (Key Caucus : Internet Governance)
</li>
<li><strong>A multi-stakeholder Follow-up framework is needed</strong> to implement the the WSIS outcomes : governements cannot implement their commitments alone and this is the opportunity to establish a neww cooperation model at the international, regional and national levels (Key Working Group : Implementation and Follow-up WG)
</li>
<li><strong>Africa</strong> requires special efforts and innovative financing mechanisms (Key Caucuses : Financing, African Caucus, ...)</li></ul>
<div>I believe these ten themes would allow all caucuses and interests within civil society to find a space (but I may have forgotten some issues). They could group together to draft the statements and try to come up collectively with speakers who could best carry them, with a respect for gender and geographic diversity. The existing NomCom could interact with the various caucuses on that matter and propose a final list of 10 names to be endorsed by the Plenary (hopefully by consensus).
</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>In chosing the fnal names, we must take into account that the messenger personnality, eloquence, reputation or origin are important to make him/her really listened to in such a forum (remember the impact of the presentation by the Youth Caucus representative in Geneva ?). Given reactions on the Plenary list, there will be strong resistance to the introduction of speakers that were not directly involved in the process. Let's therefore focus on names belonging to the various caucuses. This prevents us from proposing high profile names that would attract attention; but it seems to be a key condition for final endorsement by the CS Plenary. And there is not much time left.
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>Proposed next steps</strong> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>If the above approach is acceptable to all, we could, in the coming days :</div>
<div> </div>
<div>- notify the Executive Secretariat that we want 10 slots that we will fill ourselves and set a final deadline for providing the names (I suppose there are printing deadlines, for instance)</div>
<div>- review the proposed list of themes to see if there are key missing points or if they could/should be formulated differently</div>
<div>- consult among the Key Caucuses and Working Groups concerned by each theme on what the content of each intervention could be and who could best speak on each theme (list of 2-3 speakers from the existing list of 22 ?)
</div>
<div>- set up a small drafting group and a contact person for each of the 10 themes so that the preparation of the statements is done in advance in a transparent and inclusive manner </div>
<div>- agree to give the responsibility to the Selection Committee to interact with the various caucuses and working groups to come up - cooperatively - on an acceptable and balanced list of 10 speakers</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I hope this can help us all move forward. CS needs to shape its message first and then unite behind it. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Bertrand</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div></div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>