[WSIS CS-Plenary] "Chairing" the CSB

[John R. Gagain Jr.]

Dear All:

Yes, to Veni's question below.  It is nothing but "bringing order in the room" as
was done at the Paris meeting.  It was hoped that Renata and I could also moderate
the listserves and any work we have pending that could be done on the listserve.

In the interest of clarifying Angela's email.  There was an official motion, which
was made to have me (John-Think Tanks family) continue as chairperson until the
end of PrepCom 3.  It was unanimously approved by over 95 % of the Civil Society
Bureau.  Angela was not present.  This may be reason for some confusion on her
part.  The minutes of the final meeting are being typed and completed currently
and include these details.  It was also unanimously agreed that Renata Bloem (NGO
family) serve as co-chairperson.

I hope this satisfies your inquiry.  There is no conspiracy taking place.

John
Think-Tanks Family
Chairperson, WSIS PrepCom 3
WSIS Civil Society Bureau



-----Original Message-----
From: bureau-request at geneva2003.org [mailto:bureau-request at geneva2003.org]On
Behalf Of veni markovski
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 1:13 PM
To: bureau at geneva2003.org
Subject: Re: note to the CS Bureau


You are getting it wrong.
Chairing the CSB MEETING is nothing but just bringing order in the room.
It does not include anything else than that.

Am I right? John? Renata?

And, it will be good NOT to bring this outside of this mailing list until
cleared.

thanks.

At 23:57 23.7.2003 'ã.' Conve +0800, you wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>
>I think that this "chairing" thing is getting out of hand already and so
>soon. As I remember, we agreed to work in sub-groups if ever there was a
>need to conduct certain tasks. This was a procedure initiated during Prepcom
>2 and allows for transparency and fostering of teamwork. I would refer to
>such groups as working groups or if they are to be individuals (failing to
>get a team of at least a pair), focal points or liaison officers of some
>kind. Naming anyone chair or lead is DEFINITELY misleading, and seems to be
>going beyond the need to continue with the unfinished agenda during our
>face-to-face meeting in Paris. My understanding of selecting the chair at
>the time was to ensure continuity of the meeting agenda and to accomplish
>unfinished agenda items. What I'm hearing now is VERY DIFFERENT.
>
>Please clarify. I've yet to see in writing the TOR for the chairperson of
>the bureau as we have already expressed that we do not want such positions
>mistakenly understood as institutionalised positions.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Angela