Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four of Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents

karen banks wrote:
> dear all,
>
> passing this on at Ayesha Hassan's request.
>

        Good morning, (sorry, only my poor english, cause
        i ain't got enough time to translate... and more
        i hate machine-translation, as far as i can read
        english, spanish and french, i never recognize anything
        when i read machine translation :-(((

        First, i think that circulating documents is not
        approving them, may be even it's sometime quite
        the contrary. So thank you Karen for circulating
        this one and its preceding version. As far as I beleive that
        CCBI vision is opposite to mine, something i see
        for my experience of reading their papers, i'm always
        interessed to have a look at their views, to prepare
        my answers.

        Second, it's really troubling to look at what they
        pretend to be a mistake. Is the cut-and-paste error
        becoming a diplomatic apology, as incredible as it
        can be.

        The paragraph they get off is the one talking about
        "flexibility" they see as inherent to the working
        fare of the information society. I write a paper
        on the first version, highlithing exactly this paragraph.
        This message circulated on this list, but was in french only,
        so may be no one read it :-((

        Now, the paragraph, and the fact that CCBI get it off,
        can be read two ways :
        - flexibility is inherent, so we need to impose it, and
          for that objective, we need to contact with representative
          organisations of workers (that was my reading, and i
          fear that this "negociation" with only one way out
          will be the model for the years to come)
        - flexibility is such an important issue that it's even
          not necessary to compell with any "negociation". Worse
          isn't it ?

        How do CS negociators interpret this ?

        What i fear is that supporting "multistakholderism" could
        drive us blind to the meaning of the wordings on each
        "stakehholder" party. I can support multistakholderism
        as far as it is a way to clarify objectives, even contradictory,
        and to engage in a governance negciations where positions
        of grassroot bodies can be heard. If it's only a new way
        to write obfuscated discourses to drown the fishes, i won't
        be able to follow such a looser way to deal with problems of the
        information society.

        The incredible manner of CCBI to put and then to get off
        paragraphs, arguing of "cut-and-paste" is not a good signal...

        But the most important is to talk about such "flexibility"
        mecanism in the information society, and to have a CS view on
        this. Trade Union offer some highlights on this during the
        Geneva phase. We have to look deeper at this.

Hervé Le Crosnier

> regards
> karen
>
>> Subject: CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four of
>> Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents
>> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:25:46 +0200
>> From: "HASSAN Ayesha" <ayesha.hassan@iccwbo.org>

>> Dear Wolfgang, Bertrand, Renate and Karen,
>>
>> A mistake was found and corrected in the text of the previous version
>> of the CCBI input that I sent to you on 19 May.
>> And the cut and paste of the full ILO, OECD, UNCTAD comments which
>> included a proposed new [new 6k4.] k4. was not deleted in the drafting
>> process.

_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary@wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
Received on Thu, 26 May 2005 09:59:13 +0200