[Lac] A constructive proposal - Propuesta constructiva
Victor van Oeyen
oeyen at entelnet.bo
Tue Jul 29 14:14:47 BST 2003
Sé y concuerdo que la lista no es para mandarnos abrazos y agradecimientos,
pero...
Felicidades a los Chilenos!!! Buen trabajo Leo!
Victor
At 20:28 28-7-2003 -0400, you wrote:
>No siempre intervengo, pero estoy atento a la discusión. No siempre se
>sigue, pero en la medida de lo posible trato de dar cuenta de ella. De todos
>modos concuerdo con Victor.
>
>Además les cuento algo de Chile.
>
>1. Hemos tenido por fin reunión con el Gobierno en Cancillería. Nos han
>invitado, a propósito de que los llamamos reiteradamente. Participamos entre
>otros, María Elena Hermosilla (Pta WACC ALC), Pia Matta (Pta AMARC
>ALC) -ambas chilenas-, Alberto Cancino de la Red de Radios Comunitarias; un
>docente de la Universidad dde la Frontera, Temuco, Novena región, que tienen
>infocentro para la educación cuyos destinatarios es el pueblo mapuche, gente
>de Chileenter, fundación para estatal, ministerio de economia y el depto de
>TIC, y el Canciller, embajador ante la Cumbre.
>
>Lo más importante: hay comprensión de que el tema va más alla de la
>conectividad, de los hardware y tal...no tendrían inconveniente de trabajar
>en torno al tema de la democratización de las comunicaciones, y en este
>contexto mirar las tics....y convocarán a un seminario preparatorio de la
>Cumbre. Mañana, de hecho tenemos una reunión para preparar el evento
>(Octubre)
>
>2. en agosto (27 y 28) realizaremos un seminario, donde una de sus partes
>está destinado a informar y promover le tema...
>
>ESO..
>
>Leonel Yáñez, Santiago de Chile
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Victor van Oeyen" <oeyen at entelnet.bo>
>To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>; <lac at wsis-cs.org>
>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:15 AM
>Subject: [Lac] A constructive proposal - Propuesta constructiva
>
>
>(español abajo)
>The problem with the proposal of Sean, which at first sight I applauded
>because of his positive and constructive approach, is a logical one: ¿who
>decides and with which representativity who are composing and which
>competences will have this Task Force? ¿who will give legitimacy to its
>decisions?
>
>In other words, whatever excelent proposal would result from this Task
>Force, it will allways be very relative. "Civil Society" is in the first
>place -still- more a (sociological, political, ideological) concept, then a
>a organizative well defined structure. From this point of view, the concept
>will be permanently open to multiple interpretations, from a huge variety
>of legitimate interests. That is at the same time it's force, because
>everybody has the absolute right to participate.
>
>I agree to maintain Wolfgangs resume as good starting points, because it
>reinforces this last idea (absolute right to participate) and builds upon
>the advances made.
>
>I would like to ask the members of the Buro to submit themselves to the
>practices constructed in this Summit Process. Otherwise they'll loose
>legitimacy.
>
>Victor
>P.D. On the Latin American List came up an interesting question: who named
>the members of the Buro?
>
>ESPAÑOL
>El problema con la propuesta de Sean, al que apoyé a primera vista por su
>enfoque positivo y constructivo, es de órden lógico: ¿quién decide y con
>qué representatividad sobre la composición y la competencia de este Grupo
>de Fuerza? ¿Quién le dará la legitimidad para sus decisiones?
>
>En otras palabras, por más excelente propuesta que saldría de este Grupo de
>Fuerza, siempre será muy relativa. "Sociedad Civil" es en primera instancia
>-todavía- más un concepto (sociológico, político, ideológico) que una
>categoría organizativa bien definida. Desde esta visión, el concepto estará
>permanentemente abierto a interpretación múltiple, desde una gran variedad
>de intereses legítimos. Ahi está al mismo tiempo su fuerza, pues todos y
>todas tienen el absoluto derecho de participar.
>
>Estoy de acuerdo en mantener el resumen de Wolfgang como buenos puntos de
>arranque, pues refuerza esta última idea (absoluto derecho a participar) y
>además construye sobre lo avanzado.
>
>Quisiera pedir a los miembros del Buro de regirse a las prácticas
>construidas en este proceso de la Cumbre. Caso contrario perderán toda
>posibilidad de legitimidad.
>
>Victor
>P.D. En la lista Latinoamericana surgió una pregunta interesante: quién
>nombró los miembros del Buro?
>
>
>At 09:05 27-7-2003 +0100, you wrote:
>>Viola
>>
>>Thanks for your response. In fact I fully agree that if we look through
>>the decisions over the past year, the structure is quite clear. The
>>problem is that some people, as is very clear from the e-mails in the last
>>week, were not fully part of these decisions, or at least do not feel they
>>were fully legitimately made. I refer to John Gagain, who chaired the
>>Bureau meetings and is a members of the Bureau, and stated in no uncertain
>>terms that the Plenary does not exist and hence cannot make decisions. He
>>is not alone in this belief, and he had the courage to state his
>>belief. We also had thoughtful points made about the circumstances of
>>'professional' NGOs, that were clearly at odds with decisions that were
>>indeed taken. I have also spoken at length to the CSD, and at least one
>>person there feels that the Plenary is not as clearly the central point of
>>decisions-making and legitimacy that we do.
>>
>>SO the Task Group is not actually a mechanism to open a huge can of worms,
>>revisiting all decisions. It is a way to refine what exists so that
>>everyone will accept the legitimacy of decisions taken. I fear that these
>>hidden splits will explode again and again and cause huge
>>damage. Certainly, issues such as Jon Gagain's comments on the Plenary, if
>>he is to chair the Bureau, need clarification and agreement - they cannot
>>be ignored. And this is a non-contentious way of doing that which all
>>sides the integrity of their views. .
>>
>>For the reasons you give, I do not believe the Task Group will have a
>>difficult task. Its main job is to ensure that agreement can be
>solidified.
>>
>>All the best
>>
>>Sean
>>
>>
>>
>>At 23:46 26/07/2003 -0700, Viola Krebs wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dear Sean,
>>>
>>>CS has spent a great amount of energy discussing and rediscussing its
>>>structure. In Paris, CS managed to get a substantial amount of work done,
>>>and this at all three levels: the CS Plenary, the CS Contents and Themes
>>>Group and the CS Bureau.
>>>
>>>I am sorry but I do not see why we need to discuss the structure of CS
>>>again, coming back to issues that have previously already been clarified.
>>>I do fully agree with you that transparency is very important, but I
>>>believe the current system, where the CS Contents and Themes Group, as
>>>well as the CS Bureau report back to the CS Plenary works just fine.
>>>
>>>This is why I do NOT see the need for a new task force.
>>>
>>>As pointed out by Wolfgang, the structure is as follows:
>>>
>>>1. There is a "Civil Society Plenary" (CS-P), open to everybody, which is,
>>>as the name says, the main body of civil society, also for general
>>>decisions making.
>>>
>>>2. There is a "Civil Society Content and Themes Group" (CS-CTG), which
>>>coordinates the work of the numerous caucuses and content groups. The
>>>CS-CTG) is the main body for decisions on content related issues (by
>>>respecting, that the expertise and competence is in the caucuses and
>>>content working groups).
>>>
>>>3. There is a "Civil Society Bureau" (CS-B), which functions as an
>>>interlinkage between CS and the intergovernmental Bureau for procedural
>>>and technical issues only.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Viola
>>>
>>>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>>> >From: Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie>
>>>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:50 +0100
>>>
>>> >To the Bureau, the C& T Group, and the CS Plenary list,
>>> >
>>> >This note puts forward a proposal to address a problem within civil
>society
>>> >organisation. Informal reaction from a few people has encouraged me to
>put
>>> >it forward to you all.
>>> >
>>> >The Problem: It seems clear that there remain underlying differences
>within
>>> >civil society on some basic issues, that crop up in different forms
>again
>>> >and again. Sometimes it is the status of the CS Plenary Meetings;
>>> >sometimes a difference of perspective between 'professional' NGOs and
>>> >'advocacy/empowerment/development' NGOs; sometimes the role of the
>bureau
>>> >etc. I believe that unless we resolve these, they will continue to come
>>> >up, dividing civil society and weakening our influence within the
>>> >WSIS. And I think these differences are very off-putting for most
>people
>>> >on these lists, who just want to concentrate on the issues of their
>>> >concern, and on making a difference. I have no doubt that lots of
>>> >potential participants are put off entirely through lack of clarity.
>>> >
>>> >I believe that we can successfully address these differences, quite
>easily,
>>> >efficiently and speedily.
>>> >
>>> >The Proposal: The proposal is to set up a small ad hoc Task Group
>charged
>>> >with coming to agreement on civil society structures and relations
>within a
>>> >short period (one month). This agreement would be put for approval to
>all
>>> >CS bodies. The Group would comprise two each from the Bureau and the
>C&T
>>> >Group, and on the 'Plenary' side, perhaps one each from the four (?)
>>> >regions, maybe the Caucus reps, as well as a Chair. (Total 9) The Civil
>>> >Society Division of the Secretariat might agree to act as secretary, and
>>> >offer logistical assistance (e.g. phone-conference). The outline Terms
>of
>>> >Reference would be:
>>> >
>>> >1) To develop a clear, agreed, statement on the basic structures of
>civil
>>> >society in the WSIS, and the interrelationships between them;
>>> >2) To develop a common understanding of issues that concern all three
>(such
>>> >as the selection of speakers and topics);
>>> >3) To clarify and exchange information on the internal workings of each
>>> >group (its rules and procedures), their communication spaces etc., and
>to
>>> >mutually recognise these.
>>> >
>>> >The last two would probably require parallel discussion within each
>group,
>>> >feeding in to the Task Group. The 'raw material' for the Group would
>>> >comprise existing documented agreements and decisions reached in various
>>> >bodies, as well as the feelings and positions of the different civil
>>> >society constituencies. It could exercise some flexibility in
>>> >interpretation, to ensure that all interests and views can genuinely be
>>> >accommodated.
>>> >
>>> >It would report within one month, and all groups would agree to consider
>>> >the outcome in the most positive possible light, and hopefully endorse
>it.
>>> >(It is probably too much to expect people to be bound, in advance, by
>the
>>> >outcome.) Hopefully it could be conducted by e-mail, and possibly some
>>> >phone conferences. The report would be short and clear. It would also
>be
>>> >an extremely useful tool for explaining to new and existing people of
>how
>>> >the whole things works and where they can get involved.
>>> >
>>> >So this is the proposal. As I see it we have nothing to lose and a lot
>>> to gain.
>>> >
>>> >The Procedure: If people believe this is a good idea, then:
>>> >- Someone in each of the three groups would formally propose it,
>>> >- Reach agreement in principle.
>>> >- Select two people for the group.
>>> >
>>> >A short general discussion could then make any adjustments to the
>outline
>>> >terms of reference and agree a chair or facilitator. I think the group
>>> >itself should be empowered to further refine and elaborate the Terms of
>>> >Reference, if needs be, to avoid a complicated an unmanageable
>discussion
>>> >on the lists.
>>> >
>>> >So this is the proposal. I honestly believe it would bring us into
>PrepCom
>>> >3 as a much more unified and effective group.
>>> >
>>> >I would appreciate general feedback. I intend to go ahead and propose
>it
>>> >to the Bureau myself.
>>> >
>>> >All the best
>>> >
>>> >Sean
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >___________________________________________________
>>> >Seán Ó Siochrú Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473
>0597
>>> >NEXUS Research Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
>>> >14 Eaton Brae Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739 fax: +353 1 272 0034
>>> >Shankill
>>> >Co. Dublin e-mail: sean at nexus.ie
>>> >Ireland Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---
>>>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>>Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003
>>
>>
>>___________________________________________________
>>Seán Ó Siochrú Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473 0597
>>NEXUS Research Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
>>14 Eaton Brae Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739 fax: +353 1 272 0034
>>Shankill
>>Co. Dublin e-mail: sean at nexus.ie
>>Ireland Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus
>>
>>---
>>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003
>>
>Victor van Oeyen
>Coordinación Departamento de Investigación ERBOL-ALER
>
>Telefono (trabajo/work - ERBOL) 591+ 2 - 2203650 - 2204011
>Fax: 591+ 2 - 2203888
>OJO: NUEVO (domicilio/home-La Paz) 591+ 2 - 2790873
>G.S.M. (Bolivia) 591+ 7 - 2001198
>G.S.M. (Europa) 31+ 6 - 12777747
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Lista Caucus Lac
>Lac at wsis-cs.org
>Página de Información: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/lac
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Lista Caucus Lac
>Lac at wsis-cs.org
>Página de Información: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/lac
>
Victor van Oeyen
Coordinación Departamento de Investigación ERBOL-ALER
Telefono (trabajo/work - ERBOL) 591+ 2 - 2203650 - 2204011
Fax: 591+ 2 - 2203888
OJO: NUEVO (domicilio/home-La Paz) 591+ 2 - 2790873
G.S.M. (Bolivia) 591+ 7 - 2001198
G.S.M. (Europa) 31+ 6 - 12777747
More information about the Lac
mailing list