[governance] Repsonse on procedural issue

[Izumi AIZU]

Good morning everyone in Geneva, I just came in last night and
trying to catch up.

I tend to agree with Avri that it is still to early and risky to
withdraw from making any statements to SubComA slots, though
I do note that we are put in a critical juncture and some very
strong voices should be made to those governments who are
trying to exclude the civil society and private sector from
making the final report to Tunis.

I also think we should prepare plan B, in addition to preparing
alternative text, we should perhaps suggest to have alternative
or informal meetings with governments and others in case
they decide not to include us in drafting sessions. Just an idea
yet. More later,

izumi


At 17:50 05/09/24 +0200, Avri Doria wrote:
>There has been a suggestion that CS should cease to make spoken or
>written contributions to the drafting and working groups should they
>be defined as 'speak and leave' events.  I disagree with this position.
>
>While I believe that we should make a very strong statement on the
>procedural issue and that we should continue to fight the
>governments' decision to exclude non governmental bodies from now
>until the end of the prepcom, I do not believe that that we should
>stop speaking at the meetings, even if CS is forced to speak and
>leave.  To do so, would in my opinion, be tantamount to cutting off
>our noses to spite our own faces.  We represent many causes and have
>important postions that needs to be aired and  considered.  To turn
>our backs on the speaking opportunities would be seen as a relief by
>many of the governments for it would allow them to discount all of
>the work, and progress, CS has achieved so far.  I think it would be
>preferable for caucuses to continue to continue making their points
>both in person and in writing so that the governments have no excuse
>for ignoring CS issues. I also think it would be good to agree on a
>standard single line statement that would be included at the end of
>every other statement the caucuses made that indicated the CS speaker
>would be leaving under duress at the end of their speaking time and
>indicating that the nature of the closed meetings threatened the
>legitimacy of the entire enterprise.  On finishing their individual
>statement each speaker could then leave without waiting to be asked
>to leave, thus making the protest ongoing and visible.
>
>
>I do think we should also be working on documents that are parallel
>to the governments' documents.  In committee A I would recommend
>taking the chair's outline and filling in the sections ourselves. So
>that we would have a document with the same form but which was
>written according to CS requirements.  I am not tracking B all that
>carefully, but I expect a similar strategy would also work there.
>
>thanks
>a.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

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