[governance] Version 3.1 of the CS statement

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Tue Dec 13 16:14:53 EST 2005


By and large I think the statement is good.

some comments:

Under Humn rights:

> Furthermore, as the second WSIS phase has amplified, one thing is  
> formal commitment, another one is implementation. Side events open  
> to the general public were organised by civil society both at the  
> Geneva and Tunis Summit, in line with a long tradition of UN  
> summits. The Citizens’ Summit in Tunis was prevented from  
> happening. At the Geneva Summit, the "We Seize" side event was  
> closed down and then reopened. This is a clear reminder that though  
> governments have signed on to human rights commitments, fundamental  
> human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly  
> can not be taken for granted in any part of the world.

I think this statement is important and should remain in the  
statement.  I think it has alreday been diplomatically watered down  
so much, that any further dilution would cause loss of meaning.

Under Global governance:

>  We are concerned that during the WSIS it emerged that many  
> governments, especially from the North,lack faith in, and appear to  
> be unwilling to invest authority and resources in the existing  
> multilateral system.

I thought we had reached agreement on using 'Developed Countries' as  
opposed to 'the North'

> We note that some governments of the South were not actively  
> supportive of greater observer participation as they believe it can  
> lead to undue

and had agreed to mention Less Developed Countries as opposed to 'the  


> While civil society recognises that there are flaws and  
> inefficiencies in the United Nations system, we believe strongly  
> that it remains the most democratic intergovernmental forum, where  
> rich and poor countries have rights to speak and participate and  
> make decisions together.

I am also not sure how much consensus there was for this.


> The ethical dimensions are overarching and imperative and not value- 
> added dimensions.

I thought that there was no consensus on listing ethical dimensions  
as overarching.  Noticing that repressive regimes use Ethical  
dimensions as the motivation for their repression, we should be  
careful in terms of giving this overarching status without reference  
to the Declaration of Human rights.

thanks for all the effort, and apologies for late comments.


governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org

More information about the Governance mailing list