[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] John Gagain's note: Does Civil Society Plenary not exist?

[Meryem Marzouki]

Hi Sean and all,

Full agreement on all points.

I am not going to repeat what I said on this issue in my previous 
message today to the CT list. Let me only add that the civil society 
bureau has been highly controversial since its proposal at PrepCom2. 
Apparently, this situation is not improving, specially since some of 
the CSB members seem to speak for themselves, without any mandate. As 
far as the European/North American "family" is concerned, I can report, 
as a French organization representative who was present when the 
"family" was "constituted", that:
1/ There was no formal call for such a meeting, so that any interested 
party would have been able to attend. As far as I'm concerned, it 
happened that I was in this room before the meeting... since there was 
an internet connexion available there !
2/ less than 10 persons were in the room, among them people who are 
representing neither European, nor North American families, since we 
were informally discussing the issue
3/ there were disagreements on the "family" constitution itself. I 
personnaly raised the point regarding the absence in the room of the 
many European or North American CSO who were attending prepcom2. I've 
also raised the point that a European caucus was already supposed to 
exist (none of its representatives were there)
4/ Some European or North American CSO are not even aware that such a 
thing as the "European/North American family" exists, as some messages 
on the plenary list today shows
5/ Although there were disagreement on this constitution for the reason 
stated above, the two only volunteers were "appointed"
6/ Since then, I've seen neither any report nor any request for 
comments or proposal on any issue raised in the CSB.
7/ If it was not thanks to Sean forwarding some important messages to 
the plenary, or through CONGO sending some messages adressed by the CSD 
to the CSB, I would never hear of what's being discussed - and, who 
knows?, decided - in the CSB.

I don't know of other "families". But this absence of legitimacy and 
representatitity, as well as this opacity, speak for themselves. The 
civil society plenary, which does exist simply because we have commonly 
created it following consensus and because we are using it, remains the 
most legitimate instance.

Meryem Marzouki
IRIS (France) representative
Co-coordinator of the Human Rights caucus

Le jeudi, 24 juil 2003, à 14:57 Europe/Paris, Sean O Siochru a écrit :

> Hi everyone
>
> I think John's surprising note, and the position he takes in it on 
> civil society structures, offers us an opportunity to remind ourselves 
> of the basic progress we have made so far in civil society. This note 
> is seeking your support on five basic point below.
>
> At 15:27 23/07/2003 -0400, John R. Gagain Jr. wrote [my bold]:
>
>  Concerning the modalities of the CS mechanisms at the WSIS:
>
> 1.	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.  
> ....
> 2.	[snip] ... , as I mention above, there is no CS Plenary; and 
> especially not one that makes decisions on behalf of Civil Society. T
>
> In one sense, it is refreshing to hear such definitive, authoritative, 
> statements about how Civil Society is organised at the WSIS.  (Why 
> didn't someone tell us this two years ago?)
>
> More seriously, though, I cannot accept that the 'Civil Society 
> Plenary' meetings that I attended at Prepcom 1 at PrepCom 2, and that 
> were held in Paris, did not in fact take place as such, and that these 
> meetings had no authority to take decisions on behalf of civil society 
> at the WSIS.  Such a claim, especially from a member of the Civil 
> Society Bureau, really must be refuted.  As a member of the Bureau 
> myself, this is certainly not an official view and this is the first 
> time I have heard it aired.  
>
> (By the same token, John could even define the Bureau out of existence 
> on the basis that one has never previously existed at Un conferences. 
> Even more, since in reality, the SOLE source of legitimacy for the 
> Bureau is the Civil Society Plenary, and since the Bureau itself has 
> explicitly agreed it is subject to the Civil Society Plenary, then 
> surely the Bureau cannot exist!)
>
> Nice and all as it is to fantasize, there are some important facts and 
> achievements of civil society in the WSIS process that I think are 
> worth reaffirming. 
>
> 1. Civil Society has constituted itself into a Plenary at every 
> convening of the WSIS, PrepComs, Intercessional, Summits. It is open 
> to all of civil society members and of course any organisations is 
> free not to participate.  But the great majority have chosen to.  It 
> is the ultimate decision making body of civil society in relation to 
> the WSIS. 
>
> 2.  It has endorsed the existence of the Bureau, and the Bureau has 
> agreed explicitly that it is subject to the Civil Society Plenary 
> Meeting and must report to it regularly.
>
> 3.  The CS Plenary Meeting has endorsed the Content and Themes Group, 
> which also reports to it.  And it has endorsed most if not all of the 
> various caucuses, working groups and so forth.
>
> 4.  The Civil Society Division of the Secretariat serves the Civil 
> Society Plenary Meeting and anything the Plenary sets up,  although it 
> can also provide support to any groups who choose not to associate 
> with the Plenary.
>
> 5.  Regarding the (currently important) operation of the CS Plenary 
> between physical meetings, the following was agreed by the Civil 
> Society Plenary at PrepCom 2 (extract from the Description of the 
> plenary at wsis-cs.org list) 
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
> "The Civil Society Plenary Meeting, when convened, is the source of 
> legitimacy for all civil society activities in the WSIS.
> Between PrepComs a 'Virtual CS Plenary Group' has been created 
> (plenary at wsis-cs.org), comprising organisations and other entities 
> accredited and registered at both PrepComs to date, from civil 
> society, although organisations with a key interest in the issues but 
> that are not part of the Summit process should also have the 
> opportunity to participate.
> The list will not be a decision-making space, in the sense that no 
> voting will be called for, but a space to promote greater debate and 
> transparency in the organisation of Civil Society during the 
> summit." [my bold]
>
> The CS-Plenary list (plenary at wsis-cs.org) was subsequently set up and 
> now has over 250 registered, all of whom in the interests of 
> accountability an transparency have registered their names when 
> joining the list. Thus, the CS-Plenary list is a space to promote 
> debate and transparency in civil society overall in between physically 
> convened Civil Society Plenary groups.  I believe all major issues and 
> proposals should be openly debated there before any decisions are 
> taken by other groups, such as the Bureau and the Content & Themes 
> Group. I also believe that many decisions must be reaffirmed at the 
> opening Civil Society Plenary at PrepCom 3, if there have been widely 
> different views expressed on it.
>
> This structure may not be perfect, but it is all we have, it has wide 
> support, and has been endorsed at all major civil meetings and venues 
> at the WSIS.  I really think at this point that we all have to be 
> working from the same basics.  There are too many important issues 
> facing us right now to run the risk of destroying the structures we 
> have so painstakingly put together.
>
> I am seeking support for the above five points from those on this list 
> as I believe we cannot be continually reinventing the past and must 
> move forward. I will also be communicating on these matters within the 
> Bureau.
>
> Very best
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________
> 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