Hello everyone,
The message from Natasha who's part of the NGO gender strategies working
group and the African caucus.
Warm regards,
Angela
----- Original Message -----
From: <natasha@womensnet.org.za>
To: <gswg-coord@genderit.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Gswg-coord] FW: Speaking Slots - CSB Role
> Hi All,
>
> This is very worrying. Why was Veni's message sent to the CSB and not
> the CS plenary list? Why would John automatically assume a
> coordinating role for the CSB on the speaker slots, rather than refer
> the matter to the CS plenary and the C&T group for further discussion
> and consultation?
>
> There are only so many slots compared to many more issues/families to
> speak to. Some people/issues will not have assigned speaker slots but
> Paris also showed the ability for caucuses/families to raise issues
> of other caucuses - for example the youth caucus' willingness to
> forgo a slot (or at least delay the request) if other speakers were
> willing to mention their issues.
>
> Re the merit of Veni's proposals:
> * i think the proposal that the text is discussed within the caucus
> is valid, but it is not the job of the CSB to prescribe to caucuses
> how they should operate internally - besides that priviledges those 1-
> 2 person caucuses like thinktanks, philantropic entities, etc. that
> have very little consulation to do, and disadvantages among others
> regional caucuses, the GSWG, etc that have a larger memership and
> takes wide consultation seriously;
> * the proposal that text is handed in 24 hours in advance -
> otherwise you cannot speak - is impractical as it limits the ability
> to respond to any critical issues that may arise from that day's
> deliberations.
> * with veni's proposal, a final decision on speakers would in effect
> happen only an hour before the opening of plenary -- when speakers do
> not hand their text to translators;
> * the issues whether governments take up CS positions relate more to
> whether they are convinced of the issues and whether we have done the
> advocacy with sympathetic governments, than to how visible the
> submissions are. not sure that coloured paper would make that great
> an impact;
> * would be helpful if the CSB secretariat helped in disseminating
> documents to government delegates, but again this limits the
> ability/flexibility of CS formations/caucuses/familiies/to respond
> to emerging issues; [silly question: are we now to do our advocacy
> through the CSB secretariat?}
> * finally the CSB does not have the mandate to make decisions on
> speakers and content - other than to negotiate a chunk of time - how
> that time is used is to be discussed in C&T and/or CS plenary;
>
> Those are my thoughts on the issue... Sure there are more convincing
> arguments to make.
>
> Natasha
>