[WSIS CS-Plenary] bureau legitimacy- HR caucus method of work

[west]

Dear Avri

Thanks for raising this important point, there is no higher legitimacy or 
upper hand by CSB to plenary. But for practical reasons and to help the CS 
to work more effectively the CSB has tried to suggest methods of working and 
procedure. The reason that a working group on working methods was setup, was 
exactly to deal with these issue. For practical reasons and previous 
experience we could not at the same time discuss an issue in the plenary and 
at the same time use the one hour time to share information, we will reach 
no where. I personally believe as there is a CT plenary, they could discuss 
content and approve or disapprove texts or statements, but we could not 
share a statement in the plenary and request a consensus or decision on it, 
this need it be carefully reviewed and discussed. Who is able to vote, just 
show of hands is enough? what is the voting method, how many from how many 
NGOs? you could see that this is a delicate issue. Imagine in future you may 
have such a plenary in another country which the NGOs from that country have 
the majority of the room, then how you could vote? if there is a sensitive 
statement such as this, just imagine if this plenary was in China and the HR 
caucus statement in HRIC was shared then, do you think that plenary has the 
legitimacy to decide on the statement, with majority being GONGOS?

Well, the logical and legitimize way in this cases is to request CS entities 
to individually sign the statements and petitions. Is UN procedure and 
legitimate process.
I personally wish to express my deep concern and objection to the way that 
HR caucus works and everytime their tactic is to disrupt the process (maybe 
unintentionally). They could come to the plenary, read whatever text they 
want and request signature, not requesting plenary with different views and 
people and different kind of NGOs to reach consensus on their text in 15 
minutes!!!, even without being able to read their text beforehand. Their 
Text on HRIC was good to my point and I could endorse it on behalf on my 
NGO, but I wish to object to the process of their work.

For example, yesterday, the HR caucus have a general meeting with 7-8 people 
on the panel, and at end it was 5-10 minutes time were given for the 
audience to share their views, later on CT plenary give them another 15 
minutes to discuss more, which was not at all enough. We should practice 
human rights, not just talk about it. I propose that different HR groups 
meet each other again and try to discuss their issues and problems in a calm 
and professional way(which I doubt!), if needed CSB will try to help and 
mediate as requested.

Best
Amir
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org>
To: <workingmethods at wsis-cs.org>; "WSIS Plenary" <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2005 2:13 PM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] bureau legitimacy


> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. 
> Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific 
> people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of 
> this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> Hi,
>
> I am wondering where did the bureau derive the legitimacy for its  role as 
> a board of Directors for Civil society.  I though the role of  the bureau 
> was to serve s an interface to external bodies such as the  ITU 
> secretariat and the other bureaus and that they were not placed  in the 
> role of oversight for Civivl society.
>
> I therefore do not understand where they find the foundation to make 
> decision about what decisions the plenary, the highest decision body  in 
> CS, can or cannot make.  In my understanding this ability belong  to 
> working methods to recommend and the plenary itself to decide.
>
> In this morning's plenary meeting, the chairs, using some alleged 
> authority given them by the bureau disallowed a decision, or even a  straw 
> ballot as requested by the Human Rights caucus, even though the  statement 
> had been discussed at Content and Themes the night before.
>
> Note: while I  am a member of the CS Governance and CS Gender  caucuses, I 
> am not a member of the Human Rights caucus, and make this  comment as a 
> concerned participant in Plenary.
>
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>