[WSIS CS-Plenary] A constructive proposal - Propuesta constructiva
Victor van Oeyen
oeyen at entelnet.bo
Mon Jul 28 16:15:17 BST 2003
(español abajo)
The problem with the proposal of Sean, which at first sight I applauded
because of his positive and constructive approach, is a logical one: ¿who
decides and with which representativity who are composing and which
competences will have this Task Force? ¿who will give legitimacy to its
decisions?
In other words, whatever excelent proposal would result from this Task
Force, it will allways be very relative. "Civil Society" is in the first
place -still- more a (sociological, political, ideological) concept, then a
a organizative well defined structure. From this point of view, the concept
will be permanently open to multiple interpretations, from a huge variety
of legitimate interests. That is at the same time it's force, because
everybody has the absolute right to participate.
I agree to maintain Wolfgangs resume as good starting points, because it
reinforces this last idea (absolute right to participate) and builds upon
the advances made.
I would like to ask the members of the Buro to submit themselves to the
practices constructed in this Summit Process. Otherwise they'll loose
legitimacy.
Victor
P.D. On the Latin American List came up an interesting question: who named
the members of the Buro?
ESPAÑOL
El problema con la propuesta de Sean, al que apoyé a primera vista por su
enfoque positivo y constructivo, es de órden lógico: ¿quién decide y con
qué representatividad sobre la composición y la competencia de este Grupo
de Fuerza? ¿Quién le dará la legitimidad para sus decisiones?
En otras palabras, por más excelente propuesta que saldría de este Grupo de
Fuerza, siempre será muy relativa. "Sociedad Civil" es en primera instancia
-todavía- más un concepto (sociológico, político, ideológico) que una
categoría organizativa bien definida. Desde esta visión, el concepto estará
permanentemente abierto a interpretación múltiple, desde una gran variedad
de intereses legítimos. Ahi está al mismo tiempo su fuerza, pues todos y
todas tienen el absoluto derecho de participar.
Estoy de acuerdo en mantener el resumen de Wolfgang como buenos puntos de
arranque, pues refuerza esta última idea (absoluto derecho a participar) y
además construye sobre lo avanzado.
Quisiera pedir a los miembros del Buro de regirse a las prácticas
construidas en este proceso de la Cumbre. Caso contrario perderán toda
posibilidad de legitimidad.
Victor
P.D. En la lista Latinoamericana surgió una pregunta interesante: quién
nombró los miembros del Buro?
At 09:05 27-7-2003 +0100, you wrote:
>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
>
>---
>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
>
Victor van Oeyen
Coordinación Departamento de Investigación ERBOL-ALER
Telefono (trabajo/work - ERBOL) 591+ 2 - 2203650 - 2204011
Fax: 591+ 2 - 2203888
OJO: NUEVO (domicilio/home-La Paz) 591+ 2 - 2790873
G.S.M. (Bolivia) 591+ 7 - 2001198
G.S.M. (Europa) 31+ 6 - 12777747
More information about the Plenary
mailing list