[WSIS CS-Plenary] role of CS bodies

[Wolfgang Kleinwächter]

Dear friends,

I think the well drafted Civil Society Structure - as I explained it to the
Intergovernmental Buereau on las Friday morning
(http://prepcom.net/wsis/1058537670660) - is rather simple:

1. There is a "Civil Society Plenary" (CS-P), open to everybody, which is,
as the name says, the main body of civil society, also for general decisions
making.

2. There is a "Civil Society Content and Themes Group" (CS-CTG), which
coodinates the work of the numerous caucuses and content groups. The CS-CTG)
is the main body for decisions on content related issues (by respecting,
that the expertise and competence is in the caucuses and content working
groups).

3. There is a "Cicvil Society Bureau" (CS-B), which functions as an
interlinkage between CS and the intergovernmental Bureau for procedural and
tecnnical issues only.

In the recent Paris meeting, nobody in the CS-B questioned the fact, that
the CS-B is NOT responsible for content related issues. If content related
issues pop up in the CS-B, the CS-B should transfer this issue to the CS-CTG
or the relevant caucuses, themes groups etc. The so-called "families" of the
CS-B are representig groups of networks and coordinate the activities of
these networks formally. They are NOT content groups, although there is some
overlapping (take the "media family" and the "media themes group" as an
example. But note also that there is an "CS Internet Governance Caucus" but
no "Internet Governance Family"). In the family, the organisations, which
are linked to them, keep their own posiion and have no obligation, to take a
common posiion on an issue (like in the "Trade Union" family, where you can
have a unique position on procedural question, but divergent voices on
content themes, which is both natural and does not create any problems,
because the CS-B is responsible for procedural qustions only. To make it
short: A family is NOT a CS negotiating body, the CS negotiating bodies are
the content and themes groups and caucuses.

My impression is that governments understand this and are quite satisfied
that they know now better to whom to talk.

Here is an example, which will hopefully clarify how the system works: In
case of the controversial "Internet Governance" issue, it would make no
sense, if the IGB would ask the CS-B for a consultation. What the IGB and
the CS-B can agree is the formal point, that there is a need for the
establishment of an "joint informal ad hoc internet governance working
group". This is a procedural question, where the CS-B has a say. With such a
decision the CS-B should go then to the CS-CTG or directly to the Internet
Governance Caucus and to ask them to send some representatives into the
joint ad hoc informal working group.

Hope this will help to clarify.

Best wishes

wolfgang