[WSIS CS-Plenary] larger process questions from Prepcom I /
les questions de processus de Prepcom I
Robert Guerra
rguerra at cpsr.org
Sat Jun 26 19:54:16 BST 2004
Jeanette:
This is not an issue that just has been raised now, both after the
summit and at the informal WSIS meeting in march the item was raised.
No discussion ensued on any of the lists - perhaps didn't think it
was important. But, now - luckily there's been a realization that
discussion, analysis and work needs to be done to have more effective
structures in place.
In case you and/or others haven't see it before - below is a URL of
the report Viola wrote for the CSB meeting in march. I've highlited
certain points which were raised which might serve for points to
start a discussion...
In regards to next steps - my personal comments are as follows....
Personally, i don't think the plenary list is the best place for
discussion. I would suggest, instead that a NEW working group be
created, one with a given timeline to come up with a concrete set of
recommendations for reform.
I would envision the working group as consisting of people and/or
organizations drawn from :
- the governance caucus
- CS Bureau
- C&T
- organizations/individuals with UN lobbying experience
- HR caucus
Concrete deliverables:
1. Revision of CS Bureau (CSB)
I see it as a coordinating body, a neutral one at that, who's role it
is to provide a logisitical and facilitory role for the (real) CS
that's involved in the WSIS.
- For me, there isn't enough information written down on the exact
role and responsibility of the CSB. Currently, details are here -
http://cms.privaterra.org/WSIS_CS_Bureau
- For the structure to be useful and serve as a precedent for future
processes, we must make sure that everything is properly documented.
- if you look at the existing documentation - there's nothing on
procedure and minimum commitments which it's members should...need to
perform. So i'd suggest a discussion leading to a clear statement on
what CS facilitation body is supposed to do, and then recompose the
body with some of the existing members and/or new ones.
To be honest, i'm disappointed by many of my colleagues on the CSB
who for intent and purpose aren't doing a thing. Perhaps they don't
have time - but , i think they just don't know what expected of them
- and so they do nothing. I don't want to be negative - instead,
identify the problem and how we can move forward.
If there's no precise documentation and procedures to follow -well,
let's spend a soft amount of time to create it. From there, let's get
a team together who's committed to actually "do something"
In summary, my proposed next steps :
- establishment of review/reform working group
- deadline of Fall 2004 to come up with recommendations, so that they
are in place before jan 2005.
- should include as a minimum, and if possible members of governance
group, so that they can - suggest how to improve/revise CS's own
structures
- Revise documentation and structure of CS facilitation body (be it
the CSB, or something new)
- recommend set of core principles and rules of procedure to be
followed at CS meetings (be they plenary, or otherwise).
ie. Meetings - list of participants needs to be taken, meetings
needed to be called in advance in writing , that the announcement of
the meeting needed to be accompanied of an Agenda, both a Chair and a
Secretary needed to be elected Speaking order needs to be observed,
minutes (even informal) to be taken, and ways need to be found for
those not physically present to be able to participate.
In way - i'd way, we need to define process to follow, and make sure
those present are comitted to follow them.
that's it for now. I look forward to speaking with some of you on the
phone in the next few days...
regards
Robert
Report from the Civil Society Bureau Meeting @ Tunis, March 2004
http://cms.privaterra.org/WSIS_CSB_TUN0304_Report
The discussion then focused on the challenges of the CSB work in the
context of the Phase 2 scenario, which will be different from Phase
1. Several CS representatives expressed the need for clear procedures
when calling CS Bureau meetings, transparency and documentation about
the working mechanisms of the CS Bureau. It was suggested that all
Bureau meetings needed to be called in writing on the CS Bureau list,
that the announcement of the meeting needed to be accompanied of an
Agenda, both a Chair and a Secretary needed to be elected and minutes
(even informal) to be taken. Several CS representatives Renata Bloem
(NGOs), Robert Guerra (North America & Europe) and Viola Krebs
(Volunteers)‹ stressed the need for these procedures to always be
respected.
Ideas for the evaluation process of the CS Bureau
* Continuity and Documentation
* Lessons Learned
Lessons learned It is urgent to move forward with the evaluation,
think about some kind of a mechanism to confirm representativity of
the various representatives. Since each family has its own mechanisms
and structure, the evaluation needs to be flexible enough to match
those differences, but also ridged enough to actually be able to
really evaluate the work done so far, groups reached, etc.
* Confirmation of Focal points
* Non-representation of some regions
... there are some serious challenges, both linked to the
classification of countries such as Argentina and Mexico and the fact
language difficulties make participation quite difficult. Indeed, the
Tunisia official web site of the WSIS is only in French, English and
Arabic, but no Spanish. This language issue needs to be addressed.
http://cms.privaterra.org/WSIS_CS_Meetings
> > Dear Friends,
>>
>
>Dear Rik,
>
>from what I heard, most people agree that structures and procedures are in
>need of review and reform. Do you have an idea of how this could be done
>effectively?
>
>thanks, jeanette
>
>
>> This Prepcom has served to highlight what was dealt with in Prepcom II
>> in the First Phase, namely the structures and procedures used by Civil
>> Society to work collaboratively together and with governments in the
>> process. Just to enumerate some of the key civil society structural
>> issues that need to be addressed with some urgency:
>>
>> •` Reform and Evolution of the Bureau of Civil Society: i.e.
>> composition, mandate, functioning
>> • Decision-making among civil society: i.e. consensus versus "voting"
>> versus sign-on processes (versus shouting)
>> • Content and Themes: composition, mandate, functioning
>> • Plenary / Plenary Email List: composition, mandate, functioning
>> • Caucuses & Working Groups: issues of transparency, composition,
>> mandate, etc.
>>
>> The more that these issues can be clarified, widely consulted and
>> ideally documented for all CSOs online and on paper, the easier it will
>> be to move forward effectively. Do we have a structure or grouping of
>> us who can develop our own agreed rules of procedure on these issues?
>>
>> For example, I, in principle, have no problem with any caucus or
>> working group having some kind of standards for membership, as long as
>> those standards are widely known and enforced with some kind of
>> accountability.
>>
>> We have benefited greatly here from the presence of several veterans
>> from other processes in the United Nations, including Roberto Bissio
>> (Social Watch), Hamesh from NGLS, Antoine Medelin from FIDH and of
>> course Renata Bloem from CONGO.
>>
>> Rik Panganiban
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Chers Amis,
>>
>> Ce Prepcom a servi à accentuer ce qui a été traité de dans Prepcom II
>> de la première phase, notement les structures et les procédures
>> employées par la Societé Civile pour travailler en collaboration
>> ensemble et des gouvernements dans le processus. Énumérer juste
>> certaines des questions structurales de société civile principale qui
>> doivent être abordées avec de l'urgence :
>>
>> • réforme et évolution du bureau de la société civile : c.-à-d.
>> composition, mandat, fonctions
>> • Le procesus de decision parmi la société civile : c.-à-d. consensus
>> contre le "voting" contre le processus de "sign-on"
>> • Le Group de Contenu et Themes : composition, mandat, fonctions
>> • le plénière / email liste plénière : composition, mandat, fonctions
>> • Les Caucuses et groupes de travail : issues de transparence, de
>> composition, de mandat, etc...
>>
>> Plus ces issues peuvent être clarifiées, largement consultées et
>> idéalement documentées pour tout le CSOs et sur le papier et en ligne,
>> plus il sera d'avancer efficacement facile. Avons-nous une structure ou
>> groupe de nous qui peuvent développer nos propres des règles de
>> procédure convenues sur ces questions ? Par exemple, en principe, je
>> n'a aucun problème avec n'importe quel comité ou groupe de travail
>> ayant un certain genre de normes pour l'adhésion, aussi longtemps que
> > ces normes sont largement connues et imposées avec un certain genre de
>> responsabilité.
>>
>> Nous avons bénéficié considérablement ici de la présence de plusieurs
>> vétérans d'autres processus aux Nations Unies, y compris Roberto Bissio
>> (Social Watch) Hamesh de NGLS, Antoine Medelin de FIDH et naturellement
>> Renata Bloem du CONGO.
>>
>> 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
--
###
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org>
More information about the Plenary
mailing list