[WSIS CS-Plenary] In response to Renate's email

[Milton Mueller]

Robert:
These are valuable comments. It is remarkable how much the attempts to
institutionalize CS in WSIS reproduces the challenges we had organizing
CS's official role in ICANN.

I would be willing to discuss these issues at length but I am confused
about how, when and where to do so. I suspect that if I am confused
about this many others are, too.

For example, the new Working Procedures and Methods caucus (do I have
the name right?) seems to be discussing similar issues. The content and
themes caucus also seems to be dealing in some way with those issues.
During Prepcom, which meeting (or meetings) will this be discussed at?
Where are the formal proposals posted? It is very difficult to track all
this activity.

Another interesting question:
If caucuses are to be represented on CSB, how does one form a caucus,
or are the current ones set in stone forever? And how does one abolish a
caucus that is no longer populated or fiunctional?

--MM


Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> rguerra at lists.privaterra.org 2/11/2005 1:57:19 PM >>>
http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/in_response_to_renate_s_email.html


In regards to the recent suggestion put forward by Renate Bloem 
regarding opening seats on the bureau to each and every caucus and 
working group..

As I've mentioned before - I have several ongoing issues with the 
bureau that some of which her recommendations address, some of which 
they don't.

A big issue is that important CSB items tend to be not discussed 
openly, but among a small group and then made public when decisions 
are almost already made. Why are well prepared and thought out 
recommendations presented only 3 days before the prepcom and not 
before ? I just like having time - to discuss, consult and come up 
with options.

To be frank - I don't see just simply getting each caucus to appoint 
one member will solve anything. The CSB was created by getting each 
caucus to elect people to serve on the bureau. It took a lot of time 
and energy - consuming almost a week and a half of the precom2 of the 
first phase. Do we need to repeat the same process? Isn't there a 
better way?

Commitment of bureau members to actually do anything has been and 
will continue to be an issue. People might think it's cool or 
politically important to be on the bureau and will want to be elected 
- and then proceed to do nothing at all. Not even a 1/4 of the bureau 
really does anything - having more people on the bureau will only 
make it less effective and less able to accomplish anything. frankly 
- i'd rather have no bureau at all than a large ceremonial one that 
doesn't do anything.

I will say this - one of the criticisms of the bureau is that it 
keeps to itself, and is more a club than anything else. I don't think 
that's the case - but it is how it is seen. If we want to clear up 
that misconception, then there needs to be a frank and open 
discussion as to what currently DOES work, what doesn't and how we 
could reform things . This must not be done among 2, 3 or 5 persons 
but much more openly in a way that gives people time to reflect and 
propose numerous options.

The whole idea to create the CSB was done by a small group of people 
who got together before Prepcom II (feb 03) and then sprang it on the 
Prepcom sucking time, energy away from other items that needed 
attention at the time. The discussions related to finance, governance 
and preparations for the Tunis summit are VERY important and i 
personally would be quite upset if instead CS spent it's time talking 
about bureau elections and bureau reform.

As my theme for the prepcom is - from words to action - i would 
propose that we spend time on developing concrete details, roles, 
responsibilities that should be done by bureau members and a timeline 
with specific commitments that need to be accomplished. If bureau 
members don't meet targets, and can't comply with and commit to CS 
values of openness, transparency, responsibility and human rights 
then they should be off the bureau.

that's how i feel
-- 
###
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org>
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org 
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary