[WSIS-CT] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] "Civil Society Caucus on
follow-up"
claire shearman
claire.shearman at mcr1.poptel.org.uk
Wed Oct 8 23:43:03 BST 2003
Hi
I too think it would be useful to have some forum for discussing follow up
issues. I'm not sure it should be called a caucus either - mainly because
that implies a particular role and way of working that has been useful in
the context of preparing for the December Summit but may not be the most
effective or appropriate way of responding to the new situation of Geneva
to Tunis. A 'task force' sounds a useful way forward; or a working group is
also fine
Claire
At 04:07 PM 8/10/03 +0200, Rik Panganiban wrote:
>Dear Bertrand, et al,
>
>I support and would participate in some kind of mechanism focusing on
>follow-up, monitoring and implementation issues. Of course this should be
>under the umbrella of Content and Themes and be informed by the different
>caucuses. But having a seperate space where more general follow-up issues
>can be discussed, particularly between Geneva and Tunis, might prove to
>be quite useful.
>
>A short anecdote: During the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, WFM facilitated
>the "task group on legal and institutional matters," which had a very
>similar mandate. While other NGO caucuses were focusing on specific
>sustainable development issues like clean water, the ozone layer, and
>endangered species, the task group studied various proposals for
>monitoring follow-up and monitoring of Agenda 21. In the end, the Task
>Group was instrumental in the creation of the Commission on Sustainable
>Development, the inter-governmental body charged with monitoring
>implementation of the Earth Summit.
>
>We need to stay focused on the bigger picture. No matter what governments
>decide to put into the Action Plan, unless there are mechanisms in place
>to ensure active monitoring and implementation, it will remain just a
>piece of paper.
>
>I would argue that "caucus" might not be the best term for this group.
>Perhaps "task group" or "working group" would be more acceptable?
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Rik Panganiban
>WFM
>
>On Mardi, septembre 30, 2003, at 11:28 AM, Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE wrote:
>
>>Hi Meryem,
>>
>>you raised an important question :
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Can we have more information about this "Civil Society
>>Caucus on follow-up" (members, objectives, etc.) ? I'm
>>wondering how the follow-up issue, which would be mainly
>>determined by the Action Plan, can be dealt with by a
>>caucus, instead of being addressed by a general group made
>>up of all caucus representatives, like the Content and
>>Themes group.
>>The follow-up concerns all groups and participants in WSIS,
>>and all the regions and themes addressed by caucuses.
>>
>>
>>Actually, the same remark was made by karen in a separate
>>email. Maybe the preliminary answer I made her will address
>>some of your concerns. But the ideal format is open to
>>discussion. My only concern is to put the issue on the table
>>(at the process level) and to provide a space to address it.
>>As mentionned below, caucus is probably not the right
>>expression here (issue group ?). All participants are
>>welcome.
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Karen,
>>
>>you wrote :
>>
>>>ok - this is done.. though i would have thought follow up
>>is something almost everyone would be interested/involved
>>in?
>>
>>
>>I do agree and it is an excellent opportunity for me to
>>clarify my thoughts and explain the notion of "issue
>>networks".
>>
>>1) follow-up covers at least three different aspects :
>>preparation of the Tunis Event, monitoring progress and
>>facilitating implementation; and I agree all actors are
>>concerned with the three dimensions; this list is dealing
>>only with how this should be organized at the institutional
>>level; basically, this is a list for those interested in the
>>summit's process; content issues are and should be addressed
>>elsewhere;
>>
>>2) setting up a group and a distinct mailing list is only a
>>way to identify an issue and gather those who are interested
>>in it; I believe it is an issue of key importance for Civil
>>Society as a whole, but find absolutely natural that only
>>certain people devote time to it; as I am glad that others
>>address the issue of Human rights on my behalf;
>>
>>3) this is still probably a little different from most CS
>>caucusses who are more formed around an advocacy position
>>(gender, human rights, etc...) or the representation of
>>certain interests (regional for instance); there is no
>>advocacy here, except maybe a slight tendency to rpomote
>>multi-stakeholder discussions :-), maybe this group should
>>not be called a caucus, but for whatever reason I like the
>>term;
>>
>>4) the purpose here is to raise awareness on the issue of
>>follow-up and provide a space for information and debate;
>>individuals and entities participating in this debate can
>>have different viewpoints and conduct different activities
>>on their own;
>>
>>5) I imagine people participating at four different levels
>>(and positionning themselves as such) : visitors simply
>>consulting the archives once in a while to see what is
>>happening (the "interested"); subscribers to the mailing
>>list that will post mostly as a response to "Request for
>>comments" issued when a topic has reached a certain
>>maturity (the "consulted"); subscribers actively posting on
>>a regular basis (the "participants"); the most regular and
>>active members taking the responsibility of animating the
>>discussion (the "convenors")
>>
>>The creation of issue caucusses within civil society is for
>>me more important than the creation of the Bureau, which is
>>merely mimicking the governmental process. Caucusses (moving
>>from the spontaneoous and informal to more structured
>>agendas) are the blueprint for a new way to work and they
>>may be the main contribution civil society will bring to
>>this summit. I see the period between geneva and tunis
>>organized aroung issue networks - in a format closer to
>>civil society caucusses than goverenmental working groups.
>>
>>I think civil society is essential to the period between
>>Geneva and Tunis and that without it, there simply is no
>>possible implementation of the Action Plan. My self-defined
>>mission is to ensure that its participation is fully
>>recognized during that period and that institutional
>>mechanisms (formal and informal) are built in that spirit.
>>This is in particular what I try to do with the WSIS-online
>>platform and with the organization during the summit of
>>interactive seminars to give more visibility to the
>>convenors of summit events (more on that soon).
>>
>>I am exploring while walking, as we all are, but thanks for
>>having forced me to clarify my own thoughts.
>>
>>
>>All the best
>>
>>Bertrand
>>
>>
>>Bertrand de LA CHAPELLE
>>OpenWSIS Initiative
>>lachapelle at openwsis.org
>>tel : 33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>
>>
>>About OpenWSIS
>>OpenWSIS Initiative is piloting an open consultation and
>>cooperation process for all categories of stakeholders to
>>jointly identify and formalize Issues of Common Concern
>>or Interest (ICCIs), to facilitate implementation of the
>>WSIS Action Plan between Geneva and Tunis.
>>
>>A propos de l'OpenWSIS
>>OpenWSIS est un processus pilote de
>>consultation et de coopération visant à faciliter l'identification et la
>>formalisation par toutes les parties prenantes concernées
>>des sujets de préoccupation ou d'intérêt communs
>>(SPICs)qui faciliteront la mise en oeuvre du plan d'action
>>du SMSI pendant la période de Genève à Tunis.
>>_______________________________________________
>>Ct mailing list
>>Ct at wsis-cs.org
>><http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct
>>
>>Civil Society Plenary: <http://www.wsis-cs.org/>http://www.wsis-cs.org/
>>Content & Themes Documents:
>><http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/bscw.cgi/0/42953798>http://bscw.fit.fraunhofer.de/pub/bscw.cgi/0/42953798
>>
>>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Rik Panganiban email: rikp at bluewin.ch
>Special Adviser tel: +41 22 734 9774
>World Federalist Movement Fax: +41 22 734 9775
>www.wfm.org Mobile: +41 76 473 3274
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>
><br>
><br>
><div>---</div>
><div>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.</div>
><div>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (<a href="http://www.grisoft.com/"
>EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://www.grisoft.com</a>).</div>
><div>Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 6/10/03</div>
></blockquote></x-html>
-------------- next part --------------
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 6/10/03
More information about the Plenary
mailing list