[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] A constructive proposal
Sean O Siochru
sean at nexus.ie
Sun Jul 27 09:05:50 BST 2003
Viola
Thanks for your response. In fact I fully agree that if we look through
the decisions over the past year, the structure is quite clear. The
problem is that some people, as is very clear from the e-mails in the last
week, were not fully part of these decisions, or at least do not feel they
were fully legitimately made. I refer to John Gagain, who chaired the
Bureau meetings and is a members of the Bureau, and stated in no uncertain
terms that the Plenary does not exist and hence cannot make decisions. He
is not alone in this belief, and he had the courage to state his
belief. We also had thoughtful points made about the circumstances of
'professional' NGOs, that were clearly at odds with decisions that were
indeed taken. I have also spoken at length to the CSD, and at least one
person there feels that the Plenary is not as clearly the central point of
decisions-making and legitimacy that we do.
SO the Task Group is not actually a mechanism to open a huge can of worms,
revisiting all decisions. It is a way to refine what exists so that
everyone will accept the legitimacy of decisions taken. I fear that these
hidden splits will explode again and again and cause huge
damage. Certainly, issues such as Jon Gagain's comments on the Plenary, if
he is to chair the Bureau, need clarification and agreement - they cannot
be ignored. And this is a non-contentious way of doing that which all
sides the integrity of their views. .
For the reasons you give, I do not believe the Task Group will have a
difficult task. Its main job is to ensure that agreement can be solidified.
All the best
Sean
At 23:46 26/07/2003 -0700, Viola Krebs wrote:
>Dear Sean,
>
>CS has spent a great amount of energy discussing and rediscussing its
>structure. In Paris, CS managed to get a substantial amount of work done,
>and this at all three levels: the CS Plenary, the CS Contents and Themes
>Group and the CS Bureau.
>
>I am sorry but I do not see why we need to discuss the structure of CS
>again, coming back to issues that have previously already been clarified.
>I do fully agree with you that transparency is very important, but I
>believe the current system, where the CS Contents and Themes Group, as
>well as the CS Bureau report back to the CS Plenary works just fine.
>
>This is why I do NOT see the need for a new task force.
>
>As pointed out by Wolfgang, the structure is as follows:
>
>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
>coordinates 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 "Civil Society Bureau" (CS-B), which functions as an
>interlinkage between CS and the intergovernmental Bureau for procedural
>and technical issues only.
>
>Regards,
>
>Viola
>
>---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >From: Sean O Siochru <sean at nexus.ie>
>Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:50 +0100
>
> >To the Bureau, the C& T Group, and the CS Plenary list,
> >
> >This note puts forward a proposal to address a problem within civil society
> >organisation. Informal reaction from a few people has encouraged me to put
> >it forward to you all.
> >
> >The Problem: It seems clear that there remain underlying differences within
> >civil society on some basic issues, that crop up in different forms again
> >and again. Sometimes it is the status of the CS Plenary Meetings;
> >sometimes a difference of perspective between 'professional' NGOs and
> >'advocacy/empowerment/development' NGOs; sometimes the role of the bureau
> >etc. I believe that unless we resolve these, they will continue to come
> >up, dividing civil society and weakening our influence within the
> >WSIS. And I think these differences are very off-putting for most people
> >on these lists, who just want to concentrate on the issues of their
> >concern, and on making a difference. I have no doubt that lots of
> >potential participants are put off entirely through lack of clarity.
> >
> >I believe that we can successfully address these differences, quite easily,
> >efficiently and speedily.
> >
> >The Proposal: The proposal is to set up a small ad hoc Task Group charged
> >with coming to agreement on civil society structures and relations within a
> >short period (one month). This agreement would be put for approval to all
> >CS bodies. The Group would comprise two each from the Bureau and the C&T
> >Group, and on the 'Plenary' side, perhaps one each from the four (?)
> >regions, maybe the Caucus reps, as well as a Chair. (Total 9) The Civil
> >Society Division of the Secretariat might agree to act as secretary, and
> >offer logistical assistance (e.g. phone-conference). The outline Terms of
> >Reference would be:
> >
> >1) To develop a clear, agreed, statement on the basic structures of civil
> >society in the WSIS, and the interrelationships between them;
> >2) To develop a common understanding of issues that concern all three (such
> >as the selection of speakers and topics);
> >3) To clarify and exchange information on the internal workings of each
> >group (its rules and procedures), their communication spaces etc., and to
> >mutually recognise these.
> >
> >The last two would probably require parallel discussion within each group,
> >feeding in to the Task Group. The 'raw material' for the Group would
> >comprise existing documented agreements and decisions reached in various
> >bodies, as well as the feelings and positions of the different civil
> >society constituencies. It could exercise some flexibility in
> >interpretation, to ensure that all interests and views can genuinely be
> >accommodated.
> >
> >It would report within one month, and all groups would agree to consider
> >the outcome in the most positive possible light, and hopefully endorse it.
> >(It is probably too much to expect people to be bound, in advance, by the
> >outcome.) Hopefully it could be conducted by e-mail, and possibly some
> >phone conferences. The report would be short and clear. It would also be
> >an extremely useful tool for explaining to new and existing people of how
> >the whole things works and where they can get involved.
> >
> >So this is the proposal. As I see it we have nothing to lose and a lot
> to gain.
> >
> >The Procedure: If people believe this is a good idea, then:
> >- Someone in each of the three groups would formally propose it,
> >- Reach agreement in principle.
> >- Select two people for the group.
> >
> >A short general discussion could then make any adjustments to the outline
> >terms of reference and agree a chair or facilitator. I think the group
> >itself should be empowered to further refine and elaborate the Terms of
> >Reference, if needs be, to avoid a complicated an unmanageable discussion
> >on the lists.
> >
> >So this is the proposal. I honestly believe it would bring us into PrepCom
> >3 as a much more unified and effective group.
> >
> >I would appreciate general feedback. I intend to go ahead and propose it
> >to the Bureau myself.
> >
> >All the 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003
___________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003
More information about the Plenary
mailing list