Hi Angela,
Thanks for the update. I've been trying to follow the threads. I=20
support Sean's earlier 5 point proposal but agree (with Wolfgang and=20
Renata) that his latest suggestion for a small task force is not=20
necessary.
I'm not clear though why John Gagain made his comments, nor the context=20=
about his "chairmanship". Would you or anyone else be able to give any=20=
context to this?
Sacha
On Monday, Jul 28, 2003, at 08:53 Asia/Bangkok, RunningToddler wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> Renata's message to Sean's recent proposal of getting two people each=20=
> from
> the CS Plenary, CS Bureau and Content and Themes group to redefine
> structures. Sentiment and responses so far have shown that people do=20=
> not
> want to revisit defining of the structures as we have already managed=20=
> to
> work within what was agreed upon during Prepcom II. Renata's e-mail=20
> here
> sort of summarises things. If people need further clarification, let =
me
> know, and I'll try and post the whole thread of the discussions so =
far,
> beginning with Sean's comprehensive proposal to set up this six-person=20=
> task
> force, and responses from Wolfgang, Viola and Renata.
>
> Please send me your views on this matter, as everyone would like to=20
> move
> forward.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Angela
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Renata BLOEM" <rbloem@ngocongo.org>
> To: <plenary@wsis-cs.org>; <viola@icvolunteers.org>;
> <bureau@geneva2003.org>; <bureau@wsis-cs.org>; <ct@wsis-cs.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 2:25 AM
> Subject: [Bureau] RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] A constructive
> proposal
>
>
>> Dear Sean,
>>
>> Just a few points and I had no time to respond to your proposal=20
>> earlier.
>>
>> 1. I totally agree with Viola, Wolfgang and others who refer to the
> positive
>> work done in Paris through existing CS mechanisms. Why should a small=20=
>> task
>> force give more legitimacy to what exists and worked? We have come a=20=
>> long
>> way since Prepcom1. In this context I would like to give credit to =
the
> very
>> constructive work done in the CT group with Karen and Steve, which=20
>> was not
>> an easy task, but helped to build more understanding for the need "to
> agree
>> to disagree" in respect and harmony.
>>
>> 2. Overall, the CS interventions added much value to the Paris
> discussions.
>> This was recognized openly by the Chair, the President and many
> governments.
>> The still existing frustration of CS that their contributions have=20
>> not yet
>> been properly reflected in the drafts, has been expressed both in the
>> Plenary (by Meryem) as well as to the Governmental Bureau.=20
>> Constructive
>> proposals for Precom 3 have been made in this regard, see Wolfgang's
>> intervention www.geneva2003.org and www.prepcom.net/wsis (page2)
>>
>> 3. The CS Bureau worked efficiently and in a transparent manner (see
> minutes
>> on above websites)and reported back, together with the CT group to =
the
>> morning plenary/briefing session. De facto, therefore, what you are=20=
>> asking
>> for, is already existing. Naturally, everything can still be=20
>> improved, but
> I
>> hope we are on the way. (Civil society at any given UN meeting is=20
>> never
> like
>> an organization with its own General Assembly of members (Plenary)=20
>> which
>> sets directives and policies. However, I see our Plenary as the=20
>> largest
>> coming together of civil society voices from which it derives its
> legitimacy
>> to make proposals and to be informed of all decisions made on its=20
>> behalf,
> be
>> it on substance or procedure).
>>
>> 4. Finally, I agree with Ralph that all our energies from now on=20
>> should be
>> future oriented and go to Prepcom 3, which will focus only on
> negotiations.
>> (Watch out for the new Platform for Action to be online as of 23=20
>> August.)
>> There will be no time for lengthy declarations. I refer once more to
>> Wolfgang's proposal how to become part of the negotiations. This =
means
> that
>> the caucuses have to work, section by section, particularly on
> controversial
>> issues/ paras and identify speakers for very short interventions. The=20=
>> CT
>> group has then the task a.o. to coordinate speakers within the =
alloted
> time
>> to maximize input. (I had already proposed this approach to Sally and=20=
>> Bill
>> before the Paris meeting) I do hope we will be successful.
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin@wsis-cs.org]On
>> Behalf Of Sean O Siochru
>> Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:06 AM
>> To: viola@icvolunteers.org; bureau@geneva2003.org; =
bureau@wsis-cs.org;
>> plenary@wsis-cs.org; ct@wsis-cs.org
>> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [WSIS-CT] A constructive proposal
>>
>>
>> Viola
>>
>> Thanks for your response. In fact I fully agree that if we look=20
>> through
>> the decisions over the past year, the structure is quite clear. The
>> problem is that some people, as is very clear from the e-mails in the=20=
>> last
>> week, were not fully part of these decisions, or at least do not feel=20=
>> they
>> were fully legitimately made. I refer to John Gagain, who chaired =
the
>> Bureau meetings and is a members of the Bureau, and stated in no=20
>> uncertain
>> terms that the Plenary does not exist and hence cannot make=20
>> decisions. He
>> is not alone in this belief, and he had the courage to state his
>> belief. We also had thoughtful points made about the circumstances =
of
>> 'professional' NGOs, that were clearly at odds with decisions that=20
>> were
>> indeed taken. I have also spoken at length to the CSD, and at least=20=
>> one
>> person there feels that the Plenary is not as clearly the central=20
>> point of
>> decisions-making and legitimacy that we do.
>>
>> SO the Task Group is not actually a mechanism to open a huge can of=20=
>> worms,
>> revisiting all decisions. It is a way to refine what exists so that
>> everyone will accept the legitimacy of decisions taken. I fear that=20=
>> these
>> hidden splits will explode again and again and cause huge
>> damage. Certainly, issues such as Jon Gagain's comments on the=20
>> Plenary,
> if
>> he is to chair the Bureau, need clarification and agreement - they=20
>> cannot
>> be ignored. And this is a non-contentious way of doing that which =
all
>> sides the integrity of their views. .
>>
>> For the reasons you give, I do not believe the Task Group will have a
>> difficult task. Its main job is to ensure that agreement can be
> solidified.
>>
>> All the best
>>
>> Sean
>>
>>
>>
>> At 23:46 26/07/2003 -0700, Viola Krebs wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear Sean,
>>>
>>> CS has spent a great amount of energy discussing and rediscussing =
its
>>> structure. In Paris, CS managed to get a substantial amount of work=20=
>>> done,
>>> and this at all three levels: the CS Plenary, the CS Contents and=20
>>> Themes
>>> Group and the CS Bureau.
>>>
>>> I am sorry but I do not see why we need to discuss the structure of=20=
>>> CS
>>> again, coming back to issues that have previously already been=20
>>> clarified.
>>> I do fully agree with you that transparency is very important, but I
>>> believe the current system, where the CS Contents and Themes Group,=20=
>>> as
>>> well as the CS Bureau report back to the CS Plenary works just fine.
>>>
>>> This is why I do NOT see the need for a new task force.
>>>
>>> As pointed out by Wolfgang, the structure is as follows:
>>>
>>> 1. There is a "Civil Society Plenary" (CS-P), open to everybody,=20
>>> which
> is,
>>> as the name says, the main body of civil society, also for general
>>> decisions making.
>>>
>>> 2. There is a "Civil Society Content and Themes Group" (CS-CTG),=20
>>> which
>>> coordinates the work of the numerous caucuses and content groups. =
The
>>> CS-CTG) is the main body for decisions on content related issues (by
>>> respecting, that the expertise and competence is in the caucuses and
>>> content working groups).
>>>
>>> 3. There is a "Civil Society Bureau" (CS-B), which functions as an
>>> interlinkage between CS and the intergovernmental Bureau for=20
>>> procedural
>>> and technical issues only.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Viola
>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>>>> From: Sean O Siochru <sean@nexus.ie>
>>> Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 18:44:50 +0100
>>>
>>>> To the Bureau, the C& T Group, and the CS Plenary list,
>>>>
>>>> This note puts forward a proposal to address a problem within civil
>> society
>>>> organisation. Informal reaction from a few people has encouraged=20=
>>>> me to
>> put
>>>> it forward to you all.
>>>>
>>>> The Problem: It seems clear that there remain underlying =
differences
>> within
>>>> civil society on some basic issues, that crop up in different forms
> again
>>>> and again. Sometimes it is the status of the CS Plenary Meetings;
>>>> sometimes a difference of perspective between 'professional' NGOs=20=
>>>> and
>>>> 'advocacy/empowerment/development' NGOs; sometimes the role of the
> bureau
>>>> etc. I believe that unless we resolve these, they will continue to
> come
>>>> up, dividing civil society and weakening our influence within the
>>>> WSIS. And I think these differences are very off-putting for most
> people
>>>> on these lists, who just want to concentrate on the issues of their
>>>> concern, and on making a difference. I have no doubt that lots of
>>>> potential participants are put off entirely through lack of =
clarity.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that we can successfully address these differences, quite
>> easily,
>>>> efficiently and speedily.
>>>>
>>>> The Proposal: The proposal is to set up a small ad hoc Task Group
>> charged
>>>> with coming to agreement on civil society structures and relations
> within
>> a
>>>> short period (one month). This agreement would be put for approval=20=
>>>> to
>> all
>>>> CS bodies. The Group would comprise two each from the Bureau and=20=
>>>> the
> C&T
>>>> Group, and on the 'Plenary' side, perhaps one each from the four =
(?)
>>>> regions, maybe the Caucus reps, as well as a Chair. (Total 9) The
> Civil
>>>> Society Division of the Secretariat might agree to act as =
secretary,
> and
>>>> offer logistical assistance (e.g. phone-conference). The outline=20=
>>>> Terms
>> of
>>>> Reference would be:
>>>>
>>>> 1) To develop a clear, agreed, statement on the basic structures of
> civil
>>>> society in the WSIS, and the interrelationships between them;
>>>> 2) To develop a common understanding of issues that concern all=20
>>>> three
>> (such
>>>> as the selection of speakers and topics);
>>>> 3) To clarify and exchange information on the internal workings of=20=
>>>> each
>>>> group (its rules and procedures), their communication spaces etc.,=20=
>>>> and
> to
>>>> mutually recognise these.
>>>>
>>>> The last two would probably require parallel discussion within each
>> group,
>>>> feeding in to the Task Group. The 'raw material' for the Group=20
>>>> would
>>>> comprise existing documented agreements and decisions reached in
> various
>>>> bodies, as well as the feelings and positions of the different =
civil
>>>> society constituencies. It could exercise some flexibility in
>>>> interpretation, to ensure that all interests and views can=20
>>>> genuinely be
>>>> accommodated.
>>>>
>>>> It would report within one month, and all groups would agree to
> consider
>>>> the outcome in the most positive possible light, and hopefully=20
>>>> endorse
>> it.
>>>> (It is probably too much to expect people to be bound, in advance,=20=
>>>> by
> the
>>>> outcome.) Hopefully it could be conducted by e-mail, and possibly=20=
>>>> some
>>>> phone conferences. The report would be short and clear. It would=20=
>>>> also
> be
>>>> an extremely useful tool for explaining to new and existing people=20=
>>>> of
> how
>>>> the whole things works and where they can get involved.
>>>>
>>>> So this is the proposal. As I see it we have nothing to lose and a=20=
>>>> lot
>>> to gain.
>>>>
>>>> The Procedure: If people believe this is a good idea, then:
>>>> - Someone in each of the three groups would formally propose it,
>>>> - Reach agreement in principle.
>>>> - Select two people for the group.
>>>>
>>>> A short general discussion could then make any adjustments to the
> outline
>>>> terms of reference and agree a chair or facilitator. I think the=20=
>>>> group
>>>> itself should be empowered to further refine and elaborate the=20
>>>> Terms of
>>>> Reference, if needs be, to avoid a complicated an unmanageable
> discussion
>>>> on the lists.
>>>>
>>>> So this is the proposal. I honestly believe it would bring us into
>> PrepCom
>>>> 3 as a much more unified and effective group.
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate general feedback. I intend to go ahead and=20
>>>> propose
> it
>>>> to the Bureau myself.
>>>>
>>>> All the best
>>>>
>>>> Sean
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________________________
>>>> Se=E1n =D3 Siochr=FA Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599 fax: =
+353 1=20
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>> Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18/07/2003
>>
>>
>> ___________________________________________________
>> Se=E1n =D3 Siochr=FA Central office: tel: +353 1 473 0599 fax: +353 =
1 473=20
>> 0597
>> NEXUS Research Mobile: +353 87 20 48 150
>> 14 Eaton Brae Direct office tel: +353 1 272 0739 fax: +353 1 272=20=
>> 0034
>> Shankill
>> Co. Dublin e-mail: sean@nexus.ie
>> Ireland Web site: http://www.iol.ie/nexus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bureau mailing list
>> Bureau@wsis-cs.org
>> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau
>>
>>
>
>
>
>