[WSIS CS-Plenary] Need of a CS structure to avoid future failures

[Ralf Bendrath]

Thanks for your ideas and your attempt to move this debate forward, Francis.

I am not sure if I like the term "Content and Themes Bureau", as it really
sounds a bit like "Politbureau".

But: Do I understand you correctly that you see this body as an assembly
of representatives of the different thematic (and maybe regional) caucuses?
This was exactly what Sean O'Siochru had suggested on the "Content and 
Themes" list before PrepCom2. So it seems we have some agreement emerging 
here. He just called it "Content & Themes Group", but the idea was more or 
less the same.

> If there is no unanimous consensus, then diverging opinions should be
> listed and publicized in orderly fashion after the majority opinion (
> somewhat akin to the procedure followed by the US supreme court ).
Very important point, in general, though I am not really sure how we could
decide what is the "majority" and the "minority" opinion in every case.

Two problems would still remain, after this re-formation of the 
Content&Themes Group / Bureau as an assembly of the caucus reps:

1. Drafting still de facto takes place in a small group and often 
(especially during PrepComs) under extreme time pressure. There will 
always be a trade-off between efficiency and inclusiveness, as Tracey has 
pointed out. We will still have to decide where to draw the line and what 
criteria we have here.
I would always ask for at least one feedback loop on the CT or plenary 
list, no matter how short the time is.
(Another major problem connected to this is multilingualism. I don't have 
a real idea how to solve this, unless automated translation becomes 
extremely good or we have a 24/7 voluntary translation team available.)
In any case, we could go for the following rule:
"Always be as inclusive and transparent as possible. If in doubt, try to 
be more transparent and send out one more email."

2. Some things are neither just content (i.e. pure responsibility of 
Content&Themes) nor just procedures (i.e. pure responsibility of the CS 
Bureau). These are the ones I would call "strategic", and they are the 
really tricky ones with no easy solutions. They link the content questions 
with our general role in the process, and they require an analysis of 
where and how we can achieve most with the limited influence we have. We 
currently don't have a space to really discuss these and draft decisions 
on our overall behaviour in the WSIS process.

These strategic questions include:
- how closely we (as overall civil society - nobody can make decisions for 
individual groups or persons) want to be involved in this official WSIS 
process,
- if and when we see it as a waste of time or a success,
- if we want to again start our own declaration / implementation / 
stocktaking process,
- how to get the best out of our official role in the process,
- where to focus our energies,
- how to communicate all this to the official WSIS people and to the wider 
public (including the press).

As some of you might recall, I convened a "strategy working group" during 
PrepCom3a and 3b in the first phase. This is where we discussed and 
drafted the decison to pull out of the official summit drafting process.

But in the end, this decision had to be made (and was made) by the CS 
plenary (online and offline). I am convinced that there is no other body 
than this to decide these kinds of issues. But there might also be the 
need for a dedicated space (as open and inclusive as it can be) to discuss 
and structure these questions.

So: How do people feel about a re-activation of the strategy working 
group"? The list is still active at 
<http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/strategy>.
I am not sure myself. I can serve as a convenor again if people are 
interested, but I also feel we have a good dynamic on the plenary list 
right now.

Best, Ralf