[WSIS CS-Plenary] bureau organization

Tue Feb 17 13:29:55 GMT 2004

Hi Jean-Louis,

Thanks for your note, but just let me clarify my view, which I gather is a
little different from yours.  In raising the bureau issue at the CONGO
meeting in Geneva and here on the list, I was in no way criticizing Alain
and Louise, the bureau, or the families, and certainly was not implying that
the latter were created to 'monitor CS' as you suggest.  When this was done,
CS's organization was still nascent and fluid, the secretariat needed a
structure akin to the other bureaus that it could interface with, and that
structure needed constituent groupings behind it.  While some people have
expressed concerns about the resulting architecture and it's 'top down'
genesis (and I'll never forget attending a surreal meeting  at PC 2 where we
sat around trying to figure out if we were a 'social movement' or fit under
another of the labels), in the end everyone worked together and things went
pretty well.  So, no criticism implied.

The question is simply this.  Since that architecture was created, there has
been a bottom up blossoming of working groups and caucuses, and these groups
have lots of active and dedicated members, have generated texts and other
inputs, etc.  And let's be honest, the same can't be said of every one of
the families, which after all were categories offered to us that didn't
always attract big populations.  So as we look to the next phase of WSIS,
would it not make more sense for us to think about how we have actually
self-organized and have a bureau comprising people from the most active,
member-based groupings, irrespective of whether they're called families,
working groups, or caucuses?  I can't see any reason to continue having only
one type represented just because that's the structure that was established
long ago; path dependency with no feedback loops is not a good model.

To be clear, I recognize that the bureau just does process (although there
will be content covered in Tunis) and has done it well, that its function is
not really constituent 'representation' per se, and that it would take time
to devise a collectively agreed alternative, but I still think a more
diverse representation/involvement/whatever could be useful in terms of
information flow and overall coordination.  While I personally have no
interest in being on the bureau, there are others who might bring in new
energy with such a change.

We need to be a learning network, if not organization, and to assess
everything we've done so far---what worked, what sort of worked, what
didn't, and why---with an eye to strengthening the mechanisms for CS
participation.  This will be especially important because phase II looks to
be different in focus and dynamics.

Cheers,

Bill Drake

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Fullsack Jean-Louis
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 2:17 PM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] tunis meeting
>
>
> En français ci-dessous
> Dear all
>
> I fully support Bill's opinion as far as the CS bureau is concerned. There
> is an original mistake due to members of Fondation du Devenir who created
> these families on a unilateral basis perhaps for a "better" monitoring of
> the CS ...
> Anyway, working groups have significantly contributed to CS's
> documents and
> expression during the WSIS first phase (far more than a number of
> families)
> and therefore deserve to be represented in the Bureau. This isn't only a
> "personal concern" but an issue related matter of fact. And some major
> issues are still outstanding such as Internet gouvernance and what's
> basically specific for Africa : infrastructure, access and financing.
> Another main issue still to be addressed is international cooperation.
> Unfortunately there are no families to deal with the  latter two issues.
> This is particularly regretable since the tunisean phase compulsorily
> will/must focus on these as major inputs for any concrete Action
> Plan to be
> issued as THE outcome of the Tunis Summit that all African
> delegations -both
> gouvernmental and civil organisations'- expect from this event on their
> continent.
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT
>
> Bonjour à tous
>
> Je soutiens entièrement le point de vue de Bill concernant le Bureau de la
> SC. Il y a une faute originelle commise par les membres de la Fondation du
> devenir qui ont créé ces familles de manière unilatérale
> peut-être en vue de
> "mieux" piloter la SC ...
> Qu'importe, les groupes de travail ont significativement contribué aux
> documents et à l'expression de la SC (bien plus qu'un certain nombre de
> familles) pendant la première phase du SMSI et pour cette raison ils
> méritent d'être représentés au Bureau. Ce n'est pas seulement une question
> de personne mais une matière factuelle lié aux problèmes eux-mêmes. Et
> certains problèmes des plus importants sont toujours en instance, comme la
> gouvernance d'Internet et ce qui est essentiellement spécifique pour
> l'Afrique : l'accès, l'infrastructure et le financement. Un autre problème
> majeur à traîter concerne  la coopeération internationale. Malheureusement
> il n'y a pas de familles traîtant de ces deux derniers problèmes. Cela est
> particulièrement regrettable car la phase tunisienne devra obligatoirement
> se concentrer sur eux en tant que contributions majeures pour
> n'importe quel
> Plan d'Action qui sera publié en tant que LE résultat du Sommet
> de Tunis que
> toutes les organisations africaines -gouvernementales comme civiles-
> attendent de cet événement sur leur continent.
>
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
> CSDPTT
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Drake" <wdrake at ictsd.ch>
> To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:10 AM
> Subject: RE: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] tunis meeting
>
>
> > Hi Wolfgang,
> >
> > > Dar all,
> > >
> > > It should be clear (also for the Tunis organizers) that the "main
> > > organ" of CS is the CS Plenary. CS-P has two arms, "C&T" for Content
> > > (based on a broad range of WG and Caucuses) and the "Bureau" for
> > > Procedures. The so-called "C&T Liaison" is a full member of the
> >
> > The Tunisian government is probably not all that aware of or concerned
> about
> > the details of the CS structure; certainly the ambassador gave
> no hint of
> > this at the CONGO meeting.  I suspect they think that by inviting the
> bureau
> > to Tunis to plan they've done all they need to do.
> >
> > > Bureau. It is important to explain this "simple structure" to the
> > > newcomers from the very early day to avoid any misunderstanding. CS is
> > > organized bottom up. The Bureau does not take content related
> > > decisions. It facilitates the communications between other bodies and
> > > stakeholders and the different families, caucuses wg etc. of the Civil
> > > Society and deals with formal aspects (which room is needed when,
> > > which speaking slots should be reserved, when we should have a meeting
> > > with the intergovernmental office etc.)
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't think this really responds to what Rikke said.  The
> issue
> > here is not whether there are 'newcomers' who don't know the
> structure or
> > understand the process/substance division (which I am sure the Tunis
> meeting
> > will blur).  Rather, it's whether the structure is optimally
> configured in
> > terms of democratic representation.  This concern has been raised on the
> > list a number of times by by many 'old timers.'   Why should the bureau
> > comprise only families rather than also including people from
> the caucuses
> > and working groups, which after all were created bottom up and have
> > contributed heavily?  Why wouldn't we want the bureau to
> comprise reps of
> > the most active groupings, irrespective of which of the three forms they
> > take?
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > -------------
> >
> > > > -- Original Nachricht--
> > > > Von: Rikke Frank Joergensen <rfj at humanrights.dk>
> > > > An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > > > Senden: 11:12 AM
> > > > Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] tunis meeting
> > > >> >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I am glad to see that C&T is a "born" participant in the
> > > > Tunis meeting, according to the information from Renata.
> > > >
> > > > However, it’s still worrying that the family structure is the point
> > > > of access for CS at a meeting that will undoubtedly deal with both
> > > > process and
> > > > content. And that effective means for participation in this 2. phase
> > > > will be so
> > > > limited due to financial constrains on CS.
> > > >
> > > > Rikke
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Plenary mailing list
> > Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>