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

[Adam Peake]

>Hello everybody
>
>The recent exchange of mails on the plenary has
>shown that there is a serious problem within the
>Civil Society.
>It is time now to propose constructive solutions
>to cure the disease.
>
>Whatever the culprits,
>the most important aspect is that
>those most regrettable situations :
>1/ the CS press communiqué or
>2/ the joint CS-CCBI declaration
>3/ the possible expression on behalf
>of the CS by CS members of the WGIG
>
>is simply the consequence of lack of structures
>and clear procedures to determine the expression
>of the whole CS.
>Without a defined structure, it is not possible
>to define procedures.
>
>The "vox populi, vox dei" vote by
>applause by those lucky enough to assist at a
>specific Plenary
>or C&T (or evening plenary) meeting has shown
>its limitations.
>


Really.  What was wrong with the process we used 
to try and allocate time fairly and 
constructively for civil society interventions to 
the prepcom debate on the Internet governance? 
Quite a lot of effort by people from different 
caucuses went into that process. We will need to 
make statements in the future, advice on how to 
improve our processes would be good (description 
of that process copied below.)

An obvious improvement would be more consultation 
online with those not able to attend in person. 
But we lack time at prepcoms.


>
>3/ It must be clear the CS members of the WGIG are not
>authorized to express collectively on behalf on the whole
>CS on IG issues,


I don't understand this comment.  Nothing like 
this happened, what are you talking about?


>even if the internal CS nomination
>process would have been devoid of the gross manipulation that
>I carefully exposed on this list.
>Yj  made a point that some issues have been overlooked.
>I believe that the CTB should have authority
>to determine the CS position on IG issues also.



This is what we attempted to do -- create a 
process that enabled all caucuses/wg to 
contribute to the statements that would be made 
by civil society.  Comments on what was attempted 
appreciated.

Thanks,

Adam


cut & paste from email sent to Cs plenary list on 3/5/05

Geneva, PrepCom2: attempting to coordinate a statement on Internet governance.

On Monday Feb 21 the Internet Governance caucus 
came to the evening Content & Themes meeting and 
proposed to work with any/all caucuses on 
coordinated statements about Internet governance. 
We knew governments would be discussing the draft 
WGIG report on Feb 24. We knew we would have 
about 15 minutes in which to make statements. It 
seemed sensible to coordinate how best to use 
those 15 minutes.

There was general agreement to such a coordinated 
approach from Content & Themes and a number of 
caucuses indicated an interest in making a 
statements on Internet governance. We promised to 
prepare a statement for consideration by the 
Content & Themes meeting of Feb 23rd.  Content & 
Themes reserved the right to reject any statement 
produced if it did not meet with the approval of 
the meeting.  Internet governance caucus accepted 
this.

Internet governance caucus took contributions 
over the course of the following day (Feb 22). On 
the morning of Feb 23 the Internet governance 
caucus held an open meeting to discuss the 
overall statement and key issues.  All this was 
mentioned in Content & Themes and I believe also 
announced in the morning plenary meeting. There 
were no objections, only support for what we were 
trying to do.

Following the open meeting [Feb 23, am], a few 
people joined a small drafting team and came up 
with a statement on behalf of the Internet 
governance caucus, and statements from 3 other 
caucuses: human rights, media and privacy. The 
latter were the product of the caucuses 
concerned, but took major themes suggested by 
others into consideration.  The Internet 
governance caucus attempted to incorporate major 
input from caucuses (e.g on Gender.)

Jeanette Hofmann read the resulting draft 
statement to the Content & Themes meeting on the 
evening of Feb 23.  It was received with general 
approval (people applauded ... that was very 
pleasing :-)

We asked if we should present the statement on 
behalf of the Internet governance caucus, or 
could we say it had the support of Content & 
Themes? There seemed to be support for saying it 
was supported by the group, although I do not 
think we had satisfactorily discussed the matter 
before YJ Park entered the room and objected to 
the statement in a more general way.

The meeting closed with agreement to say the 
statement was supported by Content & Themes.

On Feb 24 the statement 
<http://www.wgig.org/docs/CS-Hofmann.rtf> was 
read to the prepcom on behalf of the caucus and 
Content & Themes.

END


>Now, let us be clear, I am not recommanding to form
>a CTB as some sort of PolitBureau of the CS.
>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 ).
>
>It is just a draft proposition open to debate
>both within the plenary, all groups & families and the WGMN.
>
>Best regards
>
>Francis