[governance] Speaking up

[Ian Peter]

Vittorio, 

I think Avri's statement was good and should be read and tabled if people
think that is appropriate.

I would not add a threat to the written statement. Threatening undermines
goodwill. However it would be worth mentioning to the few countries who
continue to call for ejection of CS members that CS feels uneasy about
co-operating with parties in Internet governance matters who seem determined
to oppose the presence of CS voices.

But I would caution that the game here is Internet governance, not process,
and the more WSIS bogs down in procedural matters (a la day one) the less
likely it is to achieve anything. I'm not sure how you make a strong
statement without causing a procedural debate but if it's possible to do
that it would be better.

Ian Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 September 2005 6:46 PM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Speaking up
> 
> I think the moment has come to speak up and read Avri's protest statement
> against the exclusion of civil society and private sector from drafting
> groups.
> 
> I have been spending the last 60 minutes speaking with some governments,
> with the business people, and with some of us. The business people are
> meeting right now to decide whether to speak up, but it seems likely they
> will, especially if we do the same. Some governments (both EU, and non-EU
> from the developed world) have told us that they would support us, but
> that they need to get a strong, formal and public protest from
> non-governmental actors first. The EU is meeting at the topmost level
> today at 3pm (the only high level group meeting in the week) and so would
> need that statement before then.
> 
> If we don't speak this morning, we risk missing the train. Yesterday civil
> society people were repeatedly excluded from more and more drafting
> groups. If we go down this path, it could even happen that the next round
> of forum discussions, or even the forum itself, would adopt the same rules
> of procedure, and be "multistakeholder" in the sense that CS and PS speak
> in the first five minutes and then leave.
> 
> We need to not accept losing one inch of ground on this issue. We need to
> get consistent support from as many countries as possible, in public, so
> that it can't be easily withdrawn. To do so, I think we have to confront
> them with the risk (which, I think, would actually become reality) of the
> Internet community refusing to participate in any new mechanism due to
> this kind of treatment, and contesting the Summit through the press, which
> would possibly turn the entire Tunis Summit into a failure for what
> regards IG.
> 
> These are my two cents. I hope that other people can support this point of
> view, so that we can make a statement this morning. In any case, if we
> can't manage to get proper closure on it due to shortage of time, I would
> do it anyway, signing it with as many signatories as we can get.
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
> 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005
 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance