AW: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Evaluation and documentation of CS in WSIS

Wed Jan 25 05:12:32 GMT 2006

Dear list,

As a member of the CSB, my understanding is the same like Robert. The institutional mechanism, which has been developed during the WSIS Process since 2002, does not continue directly. WSIS has an institutional ftrameworek is over.  

There are some efforts to create new mechanisms for the continuation of the process, which is based on the four adopted intergovernmental documments and calls for new institutional arrangements both within the UN (ECOSOC and CEB) and outside, buit linked to the UN in special way (Global Alliance and IGF). 

With other words, all three stakeholoders have to reconsider its organisational and instiutional arrangements. The good thing is, that the principle of multistakeholderism is fully recognized. This is much miore than Civil Society had in June 2002, when we knocked at the door of the intergovernmental meeting. 

The governments are still in the process to get (re-) organized. There is no intergovernmental bureau anymore, but ECOSOC and CEB (pushed also be the WSIS Working group of the ITU) are working towards a new framework with special arrangements.  

The private sector obviuously has decided to continue with the CCBI. 

What civil society should and could do?

First: I support that we continue with the Plenary list.This was and is the main body of Civil society and this should be our main instrument to be involved in the ECOSOC/CEB/Global Alliance/IGF processes. 

Second: I propose that the WGs and Caucuses continue to exist, moving from policy development into an enagement towards implementation of the Geneva and Tunis Documents. And there should ber possibilities to launch new working gouprs or caucuses, if needed. This should aslso be linked to the new arrangements (for instance the Internet Governance Caucus should contonue to be involved in the Internet Governance Foprum / the process tof enhanced cooperation)

Third: The question is how Content & Themes will continue. The main task of C&T was to draft the final CS input into the governmental process. There is no drafting process anymore. However, I think there is a need for communication and coordination among the WGs and Caucuses. But this function could be overtaken by the CS Plenary.

Fourth: the CSB had no content related function. The main purpose was to communicate with the other units - in patricular with the intergovernmental bureau - and to manage organisational questions with reagrd to speakers, rooms, translaters, travel funds and other technical issues. So if there is not IGB, no Plenaries and official meetings, there is no need for a CSB. 

What we need is a leadership for the Plenary. For practical reasons I would propose that we consider the re-confirmaiton of the "Geneva Troika" to take the lead and to coordinate follow up WSIS activities. This for practicial reasons, because all these activities will be based mainly in Geneva, probably some in New York (where CONGO also has an office).   

Best regards

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra
Gesendet: Di 24.01.2006 22:58
An: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Betreff: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Evaluation and documentation of CS in WSIS

[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people]

Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message!
_______________________________________

Despite your long-ish message, the fact remains that the governmental 
bureau ceased to exist as soon as the summit in Tunis was concluded. 
Nothing new, that's always the case.

My point has been that a discussion needs to take place. The bureau 
structure has effectively one organization running it, and a whole 
host of Tunisian government agents still involved. Do people think 
that's fine? If not, what reforms might be done ?

I repeat my - personal - view that I think the CSB has ceased to 
exist with the end of WSIS. A new, CSB could be formed if there's a 
desire to do so - but it can't be done just by default. A charter 
would need to be struck  - it would include a clear mandate, defined 
role and limits to what the body and and can not do.

Having the CSB continue to exist just because it is convenient is not 
sufficient.

regards,

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374

On 24-Jan-06, at 2:30 PM, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:

>
>> Hello All
>>
>> I am fascinated that the need for CSB 'reform' persists. I have a 
>> different view that concurs with that submitted by Al Alegre. My 
>> view is that the role of the CSB concluded at the end of the WSIS 
>> negotiations and that the thread that links that process with on 
>> going discussions is the Internet Governance Caucus, though this 
>> may well limit the topics worthy of on-going efforts.
>>
> I repeat in part what that I just posted
> answering to the original message by
> Al Alegre and the bureau
_______________________________________________
Plenary mailing list
Plenary at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary