[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: "the friends of the president" drafting group

Tue Jul 6 11:31:42 BST 2004

Dear Wolfgang,

This is certainly worth exploring.

Two comments,though : 
- voting rights do not mean much when decisions are taken by 
consensus; the key questions are : what guarantee that CS 
amendments are going to be duly taken into account ? and 
what happens if, in the end, there is no agreement on the 
final declaration ?
- what are the respective benefits of drafting among 
separated constituencies vs united consituencies in the 
Tokyo regional conference model ? one could envisage a 
general joint drafting and a final polishing and reviewing 
by governments only.

These alternatives must be carefully evaluated.

Bertrand 

---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:28:24 +0200
>From: Wolfgang Kleinwächter <kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-
halle.de>  
>Subject: AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] "the friends of the 
president" drafting group  
>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org, plenary at wsis-cs.org
>
>Dear Betrand,
> 
>thanks for the careful analysis. As I proposed in an 
earlier message, one "trick" could be to propose a "non-
voting liaison". The ICANN system of collaboration and 
multistakeholder approach is based on this liaison principle 
(the GAC and the ALAC and other communities have non-voting 
liaisons in official ICANN bodies without voting rights, 
that means they do not share the responsiblity for decisions 
and keep their right to articulate an individual and 
dissending voice).
> 
>So why not propose this officially to Karklins via the 
Bureau?
> 
>Best
> 
>wolfgang
> 
>a 
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Bertrand de 
LA CHAPELLE
>Gesendet: Mo 28.06.2004 13:49
>An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Betreff: [WSIS CS-Plenary] "the friends of the president" 
drafting group
>
>
>
>Hi Rik,
>
>You rightly identified this notion of a "friends of the
>president group" as an important novation in the process. A.
>Samassekou tried something similar in the first phase but
>encountered serious difficulties in the PrepCom2, as
>governments (in particular GRULAC if I remember well)
>considered he had no mandate for doing so and that, as a
>result, they had not been able to contribute. So his whole
>document was trashed.
>
>Drawing lessons from that painful experience, Janis Karklins
>has made sure he is given an explicit mandate this time. But
>the question of how Civil society could participate in this
>process is not closed. Quite on the contrary.
>
>Indeed, during the joint Bureaus meeting, (to which I
>participated on behalf of the Internet Governance Caucus), I
>explicitely mentionned to President Karklins this 
formulation
>about a group of "friends of the President".
>
>I also recalled the statement Ralf had read that very 
morning
>in the official plenary, about providing appropriate
>mechanisms for civil society to effectively contribute "in a
>timely manner" to the drafting of whatever Political
>Declaration could be planned for Tunis and our willingness 
to
>be involved. I also recalled that SG Utsumi a few minutes
>earlier in his response to a previous question, had wished
>the setting up of "appropriate communication channels" with
>civil society.
>
>To my surprise, Amb. Karklins went further than I expected,
>replying straightforwardly that he could envisage having
>civil society and private sector representatives in the 
group
>of friends of the President.
>
>He may have been too bold : although no government made an
>explicit remarks at that time, I do not believe they would
>accept a joint, multi-stakeholder group to facilitate
>drafting.
>
>Nor am I sure this would be in the full interest of civil
>society to be merged in one single group. Maybe a separate,
>paralel, channel would be better. It has to be evaluated
>carefully - and quickly.
>
>But two things are certain in that context :
>- the earlier good input channels are established with the
>President, the more impact there can be on the architecture
>of the final Tunis Declaration itself;
>- Amb Karklins is visibly willing to find ways to involve
>civil society in more than mere symbolic ways, and this
>notion of "friends of the President" is to consider with
>great attention. 
>
>The second phase is different from the first one : the way
>the final document is going to be drafted clearly more
>structured.
>
>A priority is therefore to define how we want to be part of
>that process and lobby to get support from friendly
>governments (as was the case with the EU to solve the
>Hammamet CS Crisis)
>
>For the rest, you are right to mention that the Summit
>process must take into account not only regional and 
thematic
>events but also "WSIS-related Events". This leaves the
>possibility for events organized by civil society to push a
>given theme and force it somehow on the Agenda.
>
>This is just preliminary thoughts.
>
>Best
>
>
>Bertrand
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 11:01:45 -0400
>>From: Rik Panganiban <rikp at earthlink.net> 
>>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] process for drafting of
>documents 
>>To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>>
>>COMMENTARY ON THE PRESIDENT'S PROPOSAL FOR A SUMMIT 
DOCUMENT
>DRAFTING
>>PROCESS
>>
>>My understanding is that the President of the Prepcom Amb.
>Janis
>>Karklins has made quite an interesting proposal, which
>should be
>>accepted today.  He calls for a "group of friends of the
>President" in
>>consultation with regional groups to prepare a "document to
>serve as
>>the basis of negotiations" taking into account the outcomes
>of relevent
>>thematic, regional and other "WSIS-related" meetings.
>>
>>This proposal would represent a good amount of trust placed
>in the
>>President to facilitate the drafting of the main texts of
>the Summit
>>directly, as opposed to being done through a bureau or only
>through a
>>formal Prepcom process.  In Phase I, the Prepcom 
President's
>own
>>drafting process was pre-empted by governments wishing to
>have more
>>direct control over the drafting.
>>
>>This also would be a evolving document that would be able 
to
>>incorporate the results of various "WSIS-related" 
meetings. 
>This is in
>>contrast to the Phase I process, which did not allow for 
the
>regional
>>consultations to be directly inputted into the draft summit
>texts.  In
>>addition, it leaves vague the notion of which meetings
>actually might
>>be included, since "WSIS-related" could be interpreted 
quite
>broadly,
>>perhaps including meetings organized by the private sector,
>civil
>>society, academia, etc.
>>
>>Presumably the final documents will take the form of a
>political
>>declaration and an action-oriented document.
>>
>>For civil society, this represents perhaps a gain and
>perhaps a loss in
>>terms of our ability to monitor and contribute to the
>drafting process.
>>  A "friends of the chair" committee would presumably be
>closed to
>>observers.  However a text incorporating directly thematic,
>regional
>>and other WSIS-related meetings might be more open to civil
>society
>>input, since it gives us more opportunities to make
>contributions that
>>in the end might end up in the summit text.
>>
>>Rik Panganiban
>>===============================================
>>RIK PANGANIBAN       Communications Coordinator
>>
>>Conference of NGOs in Consultative Relationship
>>with the United Nations (CONGO)
>>web: http://www.ngocongo.org
>>email: rik.panganiban at ngocongo.org
>>mobile: (+1) 917-710-5524
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary