[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] Speaking Slots - CSB Role - No Civil Society Plenary

[Amali De Silva]

The Vancouver Community Network is a non-profit ISP that services over 2 million plus persons located in British Columbia, Canada. It also provides computer training, runs programs with youth, involved in CAP, hosts the websites of over 400+ non-profit organizations plus more programs. The population we serve is multicultural,  includes all age and income groups, education levels, includes marginalized groups etc ....basically everybody!
 
The Vancouver Community Network would like a speaking slot to showcase it's work and  share it's experiences at Prep Com 3-  - Who do I e-mail ? 
 
Amali De Silva-Mitchell, Vice President, Vancouver Community Network, Canada

"John R. Gagain Jr." <jgagain at unadr.org> wrote:

Dear All:



Thank you Sean and others for sending these important comments in regards to Veni's initial email.



I think there are two issues on the table: 1. Functioning of the caucuses / Speaking Slots; 2. Modalities of the CS mechanisms at the WSIS (2a. CS Information Session and Debriefing & 2b. Speaking Slots.



***



1. Functioning of the caucuses / Speaking Slots



I would have to say that while I see Veni's issue as very important, I do not believe that it prompts a discussion (although always important) concerning the role of the C&T Group, CSB, etc.  It is more of an issue of the internal workings of each individual caucus group.  



I was present when Veni’s situation occurred in Paris and I believe it is really an issue for the caucus.  How the caucuses function is an issue for the caucuses themselves, which they may wish to take up with the Content and Themes (CT) working group due to the fact that they deal with substance.



Basically (and Veni may wish to elaborate) the issue was that Veni asked me for some help in mediating a situation (which I thought was asked of me in my personal capacity, not as the current chairperson of the CSB), which included a Civil Society representative speaking on behalf of the Internet Governance caucus in the Plenary.  The speech in the Plenary supposedly was not going to (or did not) reflect the sentiments of the caucus.  I believe it was resolved, but still remains an issue that Veni wishes to address.



2. Concerning the modalities of the CS mechanisms at the WSIS:



   CS Information Session and Debriefing—There does not exist a forum at the WSIS referred to as "Civil Society Plenary", nor was there ever one at any other U.N. sponsored Summit in the past.  A “Plenary” signifies a fixed group of members or member states and the actual official definition is: 1. Complete in all respects, unlimited or full: a diplomat with plenary powers, 2. Fully attended by all qualified members: a plenary session of the council.  As you can see, Civil Society does not fulfill this definition or its prerequisites.  In Paris, we had three (3) mechanisms:

                                                               i.      CS Information Session and Debriefing (every morning from 9:00 – 10:30am)

                                                             ii.      CS Bureau (everyday from 14:00 – 15:30)

                                                            iii.      CS Content & Themes Group (everyday – times varied).



   Speaking Slots--I agree with Sally Burch on the issue that the Content and Themes Group (or the caucuses) should choose the persons who are to occupy the “Speaking Slots” afforded to us by the WSIS Secretariat, however, as I mention above, there is no CS Plenary; and especially not one that makes decisions on behalf of Civil Society.  This idea would never work especially due to the fact that the composition of Civil Society at the WSIS is always changing from meeting-to-meeting, session-to-session; and is never consistent.  Please see the definition of “Plenary” above.
Perhaps we can hear comments regards to these issues.  If you could be specific concerning the points and sub-points we have mentioned, it would be appreciated and would possibly allow us to focus our comments and concerns.



I hope this emails clarifies the series of emails, which have transpired since the meeting in Paris.



Sincerely,

John R. Gagain Jr. (Family of Think Tanks)
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Sean O Siochru
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 11:05 AM
To: ct at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
Cc: bureau at geneva2003.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Speaking Slots - CSB Role



Hi to the C&T Group and Plenary Groups

The following are some ideas floating around the Bureau.  

I think there should be joint discussions on this and other questions of common concern, so I am circulating to these lists (there are no contentious personal views, I hope).  It concerns guidelines for the allocation of speaker slots at the PrepComs etc. There is a proposal from Veni Markovki (at the bottom), followed by a comment from John, then myself (with comments from Veni in there)

But I also think it raises the issue of communication between the Bureau, the C&T Group and the Plenary Group, and how we make decisions that affect us all.  And the role of the Plenary, in terms of consulting and approving.  Perhaps the C&T Groups would have proposals to put forward?  And the Plenary? 

Sean  

Envelope-to: nexus2 at hub.mail.iol.ie
X-Sender: nexus2 at gpo.iol.ie
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:11:24 +0100
To: bureau at geneva2003.org, bureau at wsis-cs.org
From: Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie>
Subject: Re: Speaking Slots - CSB Role
Reply-To: bureau at geneva2003.org
Sender: bureau-request at geneva2003.org

Bureau members:

A few points:

1)  If anything is to be done about this - and my feedback too, is that something must - then the Content and Themes Groups should be having the key input.  So I agree with John  - they must be contacted to determine the right procedure. But it should also go forward for approval at the first Civil Society Plenary meeting, to be clear everyone is clear and has a say.

A couple of points on the proposal itself.

2)  The 48 hour wait might restrict the ability to react to what is going on at a meeting.  For example, while caucuses should certainly draw up a common position even prior to each meeting, the actual content and emphasis of the presentation might be better decided by those on the spot (based on the consensus positions).
>From Veni Markovski: I agree that it's a lot, but we need to know who is speaking, and mainly - what. If there is an urgent need, then we can have the proposed speech on paper the night BEFORE the actual presentation. I definintly think we need to be aware of what will be said on behalf of the CS the next day, and have some time for thinking it over.


3. We might also want to make a distinction between some longer and more general statements (such as the civil societies priorities - though it was longer than needed) and short statements on very specific issues related to current debates.

There are also issues such as finding fair and transparent ways to prioritise and decide who is to speak.
>From Veni Markovski: I agree, but there are quite a lot of people who've done great work in the last 2 meetings, so we can continue using them?


But let us first ensure we have the right procedure for discussing this important topic.  As there does not exist an 'offical' transparent mechanism for communication between the Bureau and C&T group I assume we contact Bill McIver and Sally Burch.
>From Veni Markovski:  the C&T are actually working quite well, for which we all have to thank them! I believe the mailing list of the C&T is the best place for discussion of whatever is on the agenda, and as per the "official" transparent mechanism, I believe that many of the CSB are members of the C&T, and we can either a) sign the whole CSB to the C&T mailing list, or have the most important issues mailed to the CSB mailing list.

Sean

I am copying this to the other, openly archived, list (bureau at wsis-cs.org) to enhance transparency.

At 15:06 20/07/2003 -0400, you wrote:

Veni,

Renata and I were selected as the CSB Chairpersons from now until the end of PrepCom 3 in order to keep the "dynamic" going (said Africa, motion by Volunteers).

I like what you have below concerning speaking slots.  Could we hear some feedback from others?  Considering certain situations at the Paris meeting, the CSB should perhaps take a role to coordinate this more.

We should also see what Content and Themes says.  They may feel that we are assuming their responsibility, however, they may agree concerning the situations and disagreements among the caucusing in Paris.

John

-----Original Message-----
>From: bureau-request at geneva2003.org
[mailto:bureau-request at geneva2003.org]On Behalf Of Veni Markovski
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 9:35 AM
To: bureau at geneva2003.org
Subject: Proposals, please, respond!


Dear Bureau members,
I'd like to propose for the Geneva meetings the following rule, based on the Paris experience:

When we have slots for speaking at the plenary sessions, I think that we should follow the following rules:

1. Topics should be discussed within the caucus (via mailing list) at least 48 hours in advance.
2. The CS Bureau should have the text to be presented at least 24 hours in advance.
3. The text should be no more than 1800 characters (one standard A4 page)
4. Text should be present to the translators 1 hour before the start of reading it.

Failure to fulfil these requirements means that the person responsible will not have the chance to speak!

If we don't act organized, we'll be facing the same problems every time between now and 2005, and at the end noone will pay attention to what we say, no matter how important it is.

We should always require from our own secretariat to have all contributions from the Civil Society being distributed to the governmental delegations. I'd actually propose even more - let's have them printed on a different paper (green, red, yellow), so that the governmental delegations will pay attention to them. However, it is not only important what we say, but also
in what form we say it. The shorter - the better. Shortest - best. We will not have a chance to make our cause presented, because there are 200 countries that want to do the same. In this aspect, I think from the slots so far Y J Park's presentation Friday morning was the best - less than 1 page, which she read for about 2 minutes. That's how we can say many things
within a short period of time. That's what we have to do!

If you have proposals, please, send them to the list, otherwise I propose a
motion to vote on this.

There will be another message shortly about the way we can work better in
Geneva. I am writing them at the airport, unfortunately no wireless access,
so can't send them immediately...

sincerely,
veni
___________________________________________________
Seán Ó Siochrú  Central office: tel:  +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473 0597 
NEXUS Research  Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
14 Eaton Brae   Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739  fax: +353 1 272 0034 
Shankill                        
Co. Dublin              e-mail: sean at nexus.ie
Ireland                 Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus 



Amali De Silva AAT(CMABC), BSc(Hons) Econ, PgDip Acc/Fin, MSc Int. Acc/Fin

Tel: 604-736-9012 & Email: amalidesilva at yahoo.com

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20030723/c8f1477c/attachment.htm