[WSIS CS-Plenary] Proposed Guidelines for CS Plenary

[Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org]

Dear Friends,

We the Working Group on Working Methods (WGWM) respectfully submit for your
consideration the proposed ?Guidelines/Framework/Charter of the Civil
Society Plenary?.

We recommend that at the plenary in the morning, that this document be
accepted as the draft text describing our working methods of the CS plenary
sessions subject to further amendments. We welcome your general comments
during the morning plenary and more detailed inputs at the next WGWM
meeting tomorrow at noon in the NGO Lounge.

We intended to keep the rules and procedures as concise and clear as
possible, but with enough detail to give some more explicit guidelines for
our plenary meetings. We have put forwarded some ?Options? for the plenary
to decide on and in some cases made our own recommendations, after long
consultations since February 2005.

Our goal is for this document to be adopted by Wednesday, 28 September, at
the Civil Society Plenary in the morning.

Best,
Ramin & Rik
Co-Facilitators on behalf of the entire WGWM

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

version 26. September 2005

1. Mission

?The Mission of the Civil Society Plenary (CSP) is to bring all Civil
Society Organizations (CSOs) and individuals together for information
exchange and reporting; in special cases, an extraordinary CSP meeting can
be organized by a straw poll process for strategic, procedural and general
civil society related decision-making purposes.?

2. Objectives
?     to provide information exchange and reporting by the different CS
structures
?     to foster global civil society decision-making
?     to encourage a sense of global civil society community for CS actors
participating at WSIS

3. Goals
?     to provide a space for dialogue and information exchange
?     to enhance the coordination and effectiveness of  CS structures in
the WSIS
?     to develop consensual positions on specific issues where possible

4. Terms of References

There are two main terms of references for the CSP. A) It is to provide a
space for information exchange, and B) as a decision-making body.

A)  Information Exchange Plenary Session
?     to organize regular CSP meetings, preferably at least once every
morning during PrepCom meeting
?     to allocate the time for the different CS groupings to report back to
the CSP

B) Decision-Making Plenary Session
?     The CSP is the most representative body of civil society
participating in the WSIS; as such, decisions of the Plenary take
precedence over other bodies.
?     The CSP is the ultimate CS organ to make decisions for all attending
CSOs.
?     The role of the CSP is to promote debate and greater transparency in
the organisation of civil society.
?     When convened, it is the ultimate civil society authority in the WSIS
process, in relation to the mandate and scope of the specific event.

5. Membership

?     It is open to all accredited civil society entities.
?     Other actors are welcomed to attend as observers, without the right
to vote.









6. Chairing

The CSP is chaired by two individuals with expertise in facilitation and
chairing, and knowledgeable about the WSIS processes and issues.

6.1 Roles:

?     to facilitate discussion and debate
?     to recognize the different speakers, respecting the diversity of
voices
?     the chairs cannot address content, and do not advocate positions, and
ought to remain neutral and unbiased

6.2 Selection of the Chairs:

o     Option A)* open nomination process during CS Plenary (taking into
account regional, gender and linguistic balance).
o     Option B) rotation among regional caucuses
o     Option C) rotation among CSB members

[* Recommendation: Option A) The WMWG recommends that the CSB would propose
interim chairs to open the nomination at the first plenary session, and two
individuals would be selected.]


7. Decision-Making Plenary Sessions

Decisions on internal CS organisational matters, or issues put forward by
the CSB or CTG, are referred to the CSP for adoption.

The decision-making plenary session is chaired by two individuals with
expertise in facilitation, the ability to synthesize different positions,
and knowledgeable about the content and themes as well as the processes and
issues of WSIS. The chairs are supported by two secretaries of the CSB
Secretariat.

7.1 Roles:
?     to facilitate, consolidate and synthesise the content of the
discussion
?     to recognize all the different speakers, respecting the diversity of
voices
?     the chairs can address content, but cannot advocate any position, but
ought to be able to facilitate the different positions, bringing forward
solutions and compromises.

7.2 Selection of the Chairs:

o     Option A)* rotation among CSB members, subject to the approval of the
CSP
o     Option B) rotation among regional caucuses
o     Option C) open nomination process during CS Plenary (taking into
account regional, gender and linguistic balance).

[*Recommendation: Option A. The WMWG recommends that the CSB should prepare
a list of possible chairs, which would be presented to the CSP for approval
at the extra-ordinary session, when convened.]




7.3 Convocation:

?     An extra-ordinary decision-making session can be convened when
necessary by the CSP by a straw poll or put forward by the CTG or the CSB.

?     The straw poll is to be used for determining whether or not there is
a need to hold an extra-ordinary decision-making session. A ?straw poll? is
a closed question (?yes? or ?no?) asked to the CSP, in order to get the
information by the people present by a show of hands to assess the general
feeling regarding a specific question/issue. The Chairs assesses whether or
not there is enough support for the outcome through .
o     Option A) simple majority
o     Option B) rough consensus
o     Option C) two thirds majority

[*Recommendation: Option A. A simple majority should be a sufficient
measure of interest to hold an extra-ordinary session.]

?     Additional follow-up procedure:
o     Option A) In this case the CSB ought to meet immediately, in order to
assess that fair and inclusive conditions were met during the straw poll.
The decision to convene must be confirmed by the CSB.
o     Option B) In this case the CSB ought to meet immediately, and make
its own recommendations to the CSP whether fair and inclusive conditions
were met during the straw poll.
o     Option C) There is no other procedural follow-up necessary. Delete
all of the above.

?     An extra-ordinary decision-making session ought to be announced
widely at least 24 hours in advance, including the time and the space of
the meeting and in emergency situations at least [three/six] hours in
advance, after the final decision has been made to hold an extra-ordinary
session.

?     A reasonable time ought to be set and a deadline given for online
participants to express their opinions and positions and to contribute to
the debate.

7.4 Quorum*:

?     A quorum is the minimum number of entities of all the CS entities
necessary to be present at an extra-ordinary decision-making session.

o     Option A) The quorum must be checked and validated by the two Chairs
as a first point of order.
o     Option B) confirmation of the quorum is made on a non-objection basis

?     A quorum accounts for a [third (33%) / half (50%)] of the accredited
and registered number of the CS entities present in the event.

?     If there no quorum, no decision can be made.






7.5 Decision-Making and Voting:

?     The first aim is to reach a decision by consensus.

?     If no consensus can be reached, any member from the floor can ask for
the vote. The voting is based on a two third (2/3) majority of the CS
entities present in the room.

?     There is one vote per accredited entity.

?     If there is no clear two thirds (2/3) majority, there can be a 2nd or
3rd round of voting.

o     Option A) If there is still no two thirds (2/3) majority after the
3rd round, then the Chair shall call for another extra-ordinary
decision-making session, under the same conditions as expressed above.
o     Option B) If there is still no two thirds (2/3) majority after the
3rd round, then no decision will be made.















-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Proposed Guidelines - CS Plenary.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 75264 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20050926/e11044f9/ProposedGuidelines-CSPlenary.doc