[governance] Civil society shut out of the drafting groups

[Lee McKnight]

Robert,

OK, if you/CS want or feel the need to play hardball,  and some allies are encouraging you to do so, then call CNN yourself, or the NYTimes. And the FT, Le Monde and Die Zeit.  There have to be some reporters in the halls hungry for a story right? So far your (occasional?) mis-treatment seems to be the main story, because of what it suggests might be the fate of us all on a future more-UN-influenced net.  

My point re Brazil is that at the moment of truth they realized a Lula/worker's party/champion of the landless government would look foolish if they helped dispossess civil society. So they backed off. Of course they may claim some other reasons, but I don't think they want to be the story you may help some journalist write.  For China this is a chance to flex some muscle on the international stage, and be a featured player in the story, so no surprise they are making people notice their views.

good luck!

Lee
 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> 09/27/05 1:35 PM >>>
Lee:

two quick comments:


1. Civil society can stay in the room if the countries , all of them,  
in the drafting room agree that it's ok. if not, then the default is  
to go to the rules of procedure that state that CS has to leave after  
making a statement .

2. it seems that Brazil agreed with having CS in the room only after  
a specific directed question by the chair if it in fact was siding  
with china or not.

The broad question right now is what to do - i see three possible  
options:

1. do nothing and accept the decision.
2. Have CS as a whole issue a statement - that is, if there is agreement
3. If there is no overall consensus by CS - then individual NGOs are  
free, as they normally are, to issue a statement .

Many govts are quite supportive of CS and are very upset at the  
development by china to push CS out, when in fact there is some  
flexibility. They are looking for CS to react in a strong fashion.  
Will we? let's see...




regards,

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>





On 27-Sep-05, at 5:48 PM, Lee McKnight wrote:

> Vittorio,
>
> My tactical advice, now that civil society is a political football,  
> is play the game.
>
> If some governments/diplomats insist on silencing civil society,  
> and by extension also the business and technical community, nothing  
> happens to ICANN or IANA - not in this decade. So it's their choice  
> to run out of bounds, or not. Civil society can't stop them, but it  
> can protest the violation of the new rules of the multistakeholder  
> game.
>
> If instead the forces of realism and enlightenment - good for  
> Norway! - prevail, then you are there to try to help move the  
> process in a positive direction.
>
> So presumably the EU will now feel the need at the meeting tonight  
> to agree to throw some muscle and tilt the US way on this issue (of  
> civil society/biz participation); Brazil seems to have realized the  
> strategic error of lining up too closely with China and Iran on  
> this issue.
>
> So in a way this whole tiff can be beneficial in reaching a  
> compromise outcome developing and industrialized countries can live  
> with.
>
> good luck,
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>
>>>> "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu.org> 09/27/05 10:09 AM >>>
>>>>
> Following up to my earlier message on the matter (report from drafting
> group III)... today at 1:45pm, at the start of drafting group IV,  
> China
> and Brazil, supported by Iran, took the floor and asked the Chair (now
> Canada) whether further instructions had been received on civil  
> society
> and private sector participation in the drafting groups, and in any  
> case
> pointing out that according to phase I procedures and instructions  
> given
> at the governmental bureau meeting, non-gov persons should have  
> been sent
> out of the room after making an initial statement, and that it was  
> highly
> inappropriate for the Chair not to have managed to get proper  
> instructions
> from Amb. Khan to this extent.
>
> The Chair repeatedly proposed to keep the compromise reached in the
> morning, to let non-gov persons assist silently and respond if  
> asked. US,
> UK/EU and Australia spoke in favour of keeping this procedure, and in
> general noted that non-gov participation is highly beneficial, and no
> actual conclusion had been reached, not even at the bureau.
>
> In the end, the Chair asked Brazil and China how serious they were;  
> Brazil
> said that it could live with the Chair's compromise; China however
> insisted. Thus, the Chair asked the people from civil society and  
> private
> sector to give a brief statement and then leave. Ralf courteously
> protested the decision before giving the statement and leaving.
>
> I can say that the Italian delegation is absolutely unhappy with the
> Chair's decision, and that the issue will likely brought up at the EU
> Coordination meeting tonight at 6pm. In the meantime, civil society  
> should
> decide whether and how to react.
> -- 
> 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 
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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