Hello everyone,
 
I thought it best to share this with th= e caucus. I think it's important to understand the context and I will be next forwarding Sean's five points as mentioned in his e-mail below. I seek your views on this matter and if as Asia Pacific, we would like to support Sean's call.
 
Warm regards,
 
Angela  
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean O Siochru
To: bureau@geneva2003.org ; bureau@wsis-cs.org
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 7:44 PM
Subject: John's note on Civil Society Plenary

To:  Members of the Bureau,

I totally agree with Renata that we need to build on trust in the= Bureau.  But this is also why I believe that John Gagain is severely= out of order in the note he has sent around to Bureau members, to the CS= Plenary List and to the Content Themes Group list.   I do not at= all question his motives, but trust also involves respecting previous= decisions and working from the same basics.

John has stated in no uncertain terms (copied below) that he believes that= the Civil Society Plenary, as it has been constituted at WSIS meetings,= does not in fact exist, and that (if it did) it has no authority to take= decisions on behalf of civil society.

I was not at the Bureau meeting and have not seen the minutes, so I cannot= comment on the issue of Chairing the Bureau.  But I do believe that it= is entirely out of order for any member, let alone a purported= Co-Chairperson, of the Civil Society Bureau to claim that the entity from= which the Bureau ultimately derives its legitimacy does not exist. =

Such a statement, especially made so publicly by the purported Chair of the= Bureau, is highly provocative and risks discrediting the entire efforts of= civil society to develop a credible and coherent presence at the= WSIS.

I believe that the Bureau must disassociate ourselves clearly from this= statement, in equally certain terms.  I greatly regret that John has= sent this around, and I believe it will inevitably damage the credibility= of the Bureau in the eyes of civil society.

In another note that I am sending in response to John on the other lists, I= note five points that I thought had been agreed between us all.  I= believe that the Bureau must also affirm these, or similar. We must work= from the same assumptions if we, and civil society as a whole,  is to= retain credibility.

Sean

John wrote (my bold):

1. CS Information Session and Debriefing There does not exist a forum at= the WSIS referred to as "Civil Society Plenary", nor was there= ever one at any other U.N. sponsored Summit in the past. A Plenary= signifies a fixed group of members or member states and the actual official= definition is: 1. Complete in all respects, unlimited or full: a= diplomat with plenary powers, 2. Fully attended by all qualified members: a= plenary session of the council.  As you can see, Civil Society= does not fulfill this definition or its prerequisites. =20
2. ...=20
3. ... as I mention above, there is no CS Plenary; and especially not= one that makes decisions on behalf of Civil Society.  This idea= would never work especially due to the fact that the composition of Civil= Society at the WSIS is always changing from meeting-to-meeting,= session-to-session; and is never consistent.  Please see the= definition of Plenary above.=20

___________________________________________________
Se=E1n =D3 Siochr=FA  Central office: tel: = +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 1 473 0597
NEXUS Research  Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
14 Eaton Brae   Direct office tel: +353 1 272= 0739  fax: +353 1 272 0034
Shankill                  = ;      
Co.= Dublin        = ;      e-mail: sean@nexus.ie
Ireland        = ;         Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus"= eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.iol.ie/nexus

---

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com/"= eudora=3D"autourl">http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date:= 18/07/2003