[Précédent par date]
[Index par date]
[Suivant by date]
[Précédent par thème]
[Index par thème]
[Suivant par thème]
[Previous by date]
[Index by date]
[Next by date]
[Previous by thread]
[Index by thread]
[Next by thread]
Fwd: [WSIS-CT] venting
Début du message réexpédié :
> De: "RunningToddler" <amkt@apcwomen.org>
> Date: Ven 6 juin 2003 16:54:19 Europe/Paris
> À: <mciver@albany.edu>, "karen banks" <karenb@gn.apc.org>
> Cc: <ct@wsis-cs.org>, <apc-ir-team@lists.apc.org>,
> <hr-wsis@iris.sgdg.org>
> Objet: Rép : [WSIS-CT] venting
>
> Dear Bill and everyone else,
>
> I support Karen's and Meryem's views on this. The CS Bureau should NOT
> in
> the first place be submitting anything on content. The Bureau is just a
> mechanism to ensure and facilitate maximum participation of civil
> society in
> the WSIS processes. They do NOT represent Civil Society. They should
> be like
> the "worker ants" of Civil Society with that very specific role to
> play.
>
> The issue of accreditation should NOT at all be imposed on any regional
> caucuses. Even if it does include non-accredited organisations, it will
> definitely have organisations that are accredited. Considering that the
> Information Society includes all, and not just the "accredited
> organisations", I find this insistence on accreditation a little silly.
> Surely, if there's a contention on content, then it's justified. But
> to see
> who's submitting before they'll listen, is like saying that they'll
> only
> listen to the privileged few. Others can go to XXX? Sorry, really
> disgruntled with this and probably not the best place to vent here,
> but I
> feel really mad about the sheer stupidity of such requirements. What
> does
> this really say about widening civil society's participation in
> decision-making processes? Do we have to "qualify" in order to be
> heard?
> What does it say of the value of anybody's views and life experiences
> immaterial of who they are?
>
> Sigh.. thanks for giving me space to let it go...
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Angela
>
>
