Hi Lisa,

Glad you picked up the ball and engaged in the conversation! If we can come
up with some concrete 'conclusions' from this discussion, we can try  to
loop them on to some relevant groups, such as the WSIS community media group
and the working group for civil society working methods. My responses below.
Gabi

> Just to clarify the statement below, which was written in
> frustration: I'm not suggesting that "media" should not be among the
> "families" of WSIS, I just object to groups like the WPFC being in
> Civil Society.
I absolutely agree with you. Actually, Arne Hintz and I have written about
this issue in the genva 1 phase (If you are interested in the papers, I can
send them to you):

'The media' were one of the families of the civil society bureau, and formed
a media caucus in civil society. BUT:"the media" are NOT civil society. "the
media" are mostly commercial, professional elite and governmental media
(businesses, public institutions, professional associations) and have no
business using a space created by and for civil society groups. The civil
society bureau (which is a self-government structure lead by CONGO, and
staffed by various civil society group members) includes these people in
contradiction to their own  definition of civil society.
We have argued:
--> Only 'our media' (community, alternative, tactical, autonomous, etc.
media) are genuinely part of civil society. Arne, Stefania Milan and I have
therefore suggested using the term 'civil society media.'

I also agree that a media caucus should be included in WSIS, but not in
Civil society. It should be recognized as a multi-stakeholder caucus (like
the  Youth and gender) and put in a different administrative space. I do not
see why the overworked civil society structures should support a space for
these groups.

> Second, by referring to acquiescent leaders, I do not
> wish to imply that all of the leaders have been this way all of the
> time; however, I would make that claim in respect to the CS
> Secretariat,
Could you clarify this? Do you mean the civil society bureau? As I
understand CONGO (esp. Their head Renate Bloem) has an important position on
the civil society bureau, but I did not think they were 'the bureau'- other
members are the caucus chairs, members of the non-governmental liaison
service and others. The Community Media Working Group does not seem to have
a seat there (anybody know why?).

> whether it was the Phase 1 leadership or the present
> one, CONGO. Having CONGO serve as the secretariat may have looked
> like a good idea at the time, but one needs to be aware of those who
> love the UN *too* much.
I absolutely agree. People who have much experience with the UN need to be
brought in touch with grassroots. E.g. They have to be told again and again
that many important parts of civil society (many of our media being a case
in point) will never be NGOs, and surely will never get consultative status
with the UN Economic and Social Council ("ECOSOC accreditation"). They tend
to think they are civil society, forgetting they are merely the most
priviledged part, and their job is actually to facilitate input from
grassroots civil society.

Look forward to more comments.

Best,
Gabi