[WSIS CS-Plenary] What is wrong with CS - Plenary, caucuses, Bureau et al?

[Nnenna]

Dear all

Speaking on a personal basis, I find some of the last mails on this list appalling.  Maybe they were borne of frustration, but I believe there is a better way to express disagrement without insulting.

That said, it is obvious that an evaluation needs to be done.  Here are my thoughts:

The Civil Society WSIS plenary (that is receiving this message) should be continued.  What can be done is to review its raison d'etre, structure, and working methods
One thing that was not clear from the beginning was whether members in the CSP are there on personal basis or on organizational basis.  Since we were accredited under organisations and registered as individuals...it was not clear.  Some people could speak on behalf of their organizations, but others could not.
Related to 2 is that some individuals (due to CS mobility) have moved from the organizations under which they were accredited. Others have been assigned other roles.
The CSB that we knew was made up of Caucus  and family reps.  But with Tunis come and gone, honestly, some dead caucuses need to be buried.   CSP needs to test and see if the living ones are really alive.  The questions that may be asked will include: does CS need a bureau for Tunis + engagement?  What will be the role of this bureau?  Who should be part of this bureau and why?  
The Working methods working group did begin to draft on a lot of these issues but, I guess, was swallowe in the Tunis fever..  One of the drafts was to bring out guidelines on caucuses..  I believe this is needed more than ever,
Whichever way, I believe that a kind of ''front'' is needed if CS is to maintain an MSP in the after-Tunis.
Best regards

Nnenna

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20061029/5b7d79af/attachment.htm