[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] A constructive proposal

[Viola Krebs]

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  
>
>
>