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

[Renata BLOEM]

Dear Sean,

Just a few points and I had no time to respond to your proposal earlier.

1.	I totally agree with Viola, Wolfgang and others who refer to the positive
work done in Paris through existing CS mechanisms. Why should a small task
force give more legitimacy to what exists and worked? We have come a long
way since Prepcom1. In this context I would like to give credit to the very
constructive work done in the CT group with Karen and Steve, which was not
an easy task, but helped to build more understanding for the need "to agree
to disagree" in respect and harmony.

2.	Overall, the CS interventions added much value to the Paris discussions.
This was recognized openly by the Chair, the President and many governments.
The still existing frustration of CS that their contributions have not yet
been properly reflected in the drafts, has been expressed both in the
Plenary (by Meryem) as well as to the Governmental Bureau. Constructive
proposals for Precom 3 have been made in this regard, see Wolfgang's
intervention www.geneva2003.org and www.prepcom.net/wsis (page2)

3.	The CS Bureau worked efficiently and in a transparent manner (see minutes
on above websites)and reported back, together with the CT group to the
morning plenary/briefing session. De facto, therefore, what you are asking
for, is already existing. Naturally, everything can still be improved, but I
hope we are on the way. (Civil society at any given UN meeting is never like
an organization with its own General Assembly of members (Plenary) which
sets directives and policies. However, I see our Plenary as the largest
coming together of civil society voices from which it derives its legitimacy
to make proposals and to be informed of all decisions made on its behalf, be
it on substance or procedure).

4.	Finally, I agree with Ralph that all our energies from now on should be
future oriented and go to Prepcom 3, which will focus only on negotiations.
(Watch out for the new Platform for Action to be online as of 23 August.)
There will be no time for lengthy declarations.  I refer once more to
Wolfgang's proposal how to become part of the negotiations. This means that
the caucuses have to work, section by section, particularly on controversial
issues/ paras and identify speakers for very short interventions. The CT
group has then the task a.o. to coordinate speakers within the alloted time
to maximize input. (I had already proposed this approach to Sally and Bill
before the Paris meeting) I do hope we will be successful.

Warm regards,

Renata







-----Original Message-----
From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
Behalf Of Sean O Siochru
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:06 AM
To: viola at icvolunteers.org; bureau at geneva2003.org; bureau at wsis-cs.org;
plenary at wsis-cs.org; ct at wsis-cs.org
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] A constructive proposal


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