[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re organising

[Tracey Naughton]

Hello All
 
In relation to the discussion about the CSB and working procedures:

There was an agreement made about this in Cape Town, at the last CSB meeting
and what Renata is saying about new representatives on the CSB is putting
that into action.

The report deadline was stage one. Caucus's and families that did not meet
that deadline were taken to be not active, and therefore to no longer have a
seat on the CSB. There has to be some mechanism to test involvement, and it
is very useful to have the body of reports on CS grouping work in phase 1.

Stage two was listing the Families and Caucus's that have emerged and become
active and making sure they have a representative on the CSB.

This is just a logical process of closing cracks, identifying new interest
groups and gaps and filling them. So Milton, the process is able to respond
to new caucus's & families.

The CSB is not a secret society, yet there is such a lot of suspicion
surrounding it, and desire to re-organise it. My interpretation of this is
that there is a perception of power imbalance, as well as the issues with
imposition from 'above'. The CSB was indeed created from above, but it does
not claim any power. It merely sits as a a body that is recognised within
the machinery of WSIS as a logistics liaison body between civil society. I
think it has worked. I know that it has worked very hard. I see that it is a
working liaison mechanism that other parts of the WSIS structure can deal
with, because it is familiar enough to them. It could have been different,
but it's not. It's not broken so why do we have to spend time fixing it?

I think the concerns about reorganising are a distraction from content,
especially at this point in the overall process.

The time for organising a brave and innovate approach to civil society
practise with global debates is before they begin. However, just as one
would not build a bridge without consulting a civil engineer, nor should a
social process that engages such a diverse lot of people, be designed
without social engineers. There are so many tools and techniques that we
could have used to facilitate a fairer and more participatory process that
would have better enabled different perspectives, that would have equalised
the roles of players, but we didn't do it that way. It was too soon in
historical  time, given the process that frames these global
negotiations......but it's not to late for us to recommend a more
participatory model for future negotiations. However, just as the
construction of a bridge requires an engineer to manage it, so I believe a
brave innovative participatory process would require on going skilled
facilitation. 

We could do that, but to change things that are working now, would cause
more chaos than it is worth. Why don't we go on with a little more trust, a
little more transparency. If there are constructive, simple solutions to
people's problems with the CSB, lets hear what the objective is for raising
them and what could be done to alleviate the concerns. But most of all, lets
move on.


Tracey Naughton


Nyaka - Communication & Development
Tracey Naughton
Consultant
201 Somerset Hall
239 Oxford Road
Illovo  2196
South Africa

Phone/fax:    +27 (0) 11 880 5030
cell:                 +27 (0) 82 821 1771
Email:              tracey at traceynaughton.com