-------- Original Message --------
I cannot imagine that the Human Rights Caucus isn't already
considering preparing such a statement right away ?
Bertrand
On 9/19/05, Tracey
Naughton <tracey@traceynaughton.com>
wrote:
[Please
note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list.
Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific
people]
Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/
to access automatic translation of this message!
_______________________________________
Milton et all,
I was thinking the same thing last night. I prepared the
accreditation request for the Media Institute of Southern Africa,
when I worked there. While the submission was thoughtfully and
carefully prepared I have no doubt at all that hours more work could
have gone into it to ensure that all details of the organisation and
its sources of income were included. This was not a matter of non-
disclosure, but an approach of adequate disclosure to present the
nature of work and main income sources of the organisation. The
submission passed through without any further interrogation, let
alone to the extent that Human Rights in China's submission is being
examined.
Clearly the Human Rights in China application has been singled out
for particular and microscopic attention for political reasons.
I think it would be appropriate to formulate a statement noting that
the level of interrogation of this 'file' is not in proportion to
that afforded to other 'files'.
Tracey Naughton
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary@wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
--
Bill McIver
e-Government / e-Citizen Group
National Research Council Canada Institute for Information Technology
e-mail: bill.mciver@nrc.gc.ca
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/r-d/e-government-gouvernement-e_e.html
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/r-d/e-government-gouvernement-e_f.html
|
