[WSIS CS-Plenary] CSB Meeting - 23 Sept. 2005
Jim McDonnell
jimmcdonnell at blueyonder.co.uk
Sun Sep 25 15:54:30 BST 2005
I agree with Robert. I was disturbed by the way in which the operations
of the HR caucus were presented and criticized. I have only just arrived
in Geneva and have followed HR issues on the list..it is hard to judge
what is actually happening on the ground unless one is there. So it
seems to me that criticizing the HR caucus in such a strong and one
sided way is unlikely to do nay good and could undermine the important
work that they are trying to do.
Jim
Jim McDonnell
Director of Advocacy
SIGNIS (World Catholic Association for Communication)
jimmcdonnell at blueyonder.co.uk
Robert Guerra wrote:
> Please note that i was not able to attend the CSB meeting in question.
> the item was not discussed online , as is the case with other wg and
> caucuses.
>
> The position taken by the CSB in regards to the human rights caucus is
> one which I disagree with, and as such - I wish to note, for the
> record that position taken is not a consensus view of the csb as a
> whole. The issues related to the human rights caucus are well known.
> to simplify them in the way the CSB seems to have done does not
> reflect the reality of other issues - such as the systematic
> intimidation and harassment of the caucus by well known tunisian govt
> agents.
>
> since prepcom 2 several key members of the HR caucus have been
> systematically followed and intimidated. This continues at this
> prepcom. The CSB, should also take this into consideration and
> take appropriate action.
>
>
>
> I continue to have strong reservations and issues with the fact that
> the CSB does not engage in discussion online and instead prefers to
> raise the issue at meetings that are scheduled at times that are not
> convenient to those following the developments of the wsis discussions
> taking place.
>
>
> I would ask, both as a member of CS in general and of the CSB that not
> only the minutes of the meetings be posted (as is the case now), but
> also the names of the focal points attending the meeting.
>
>
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> Robert
>
>
> --
>
> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org <mailto:rguerra at privaterra.org>>
>
> Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 25-Sep-05, at 3:19 PM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>
>>
>> For your information, please find below a summary of the CSB meeting
>> on Friday 23 September.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Ph.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ====
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Civil Society Agenda
>>
>> Friday 23^rd September 2005
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Follow up meeting with Tunisian Ambassador / WSIS Executive
>> Secretariat
>> 2. Mediation / Working Methods discussion forum Tunisian
>> representatives & HR Caucus
>> 3. Overpass Criteria
>>
>>
>>
>> Owing to events in Plenary this morning the Bureau was not able to
>> follow the agenda and instead discussed the debate around the HRIC
>> statement.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Civil Society Bureau Minutes*
>>
>> Friday 23^rd September 2005
>>
>>
>>
>> The following points summarise the discussion at the CSB and are
>> offered as opinion and advice to facilitate wider debate.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. It is acknowledged that the Plenary Chairs managed the morning
>> meeting in the best way they were able to in the absence of
>> clear written guidelines on procedure, approved by Plenary.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. The precedent regarding the role of the Plenary is based on
>> evolving practice, as is Content and Themes. In phase 1 Plenary
>> did take decisions. In Phase 2, the Plenary has been an
>> information-sharing forum. This practice evolved as a result of
>> the breakdown in co-operation that occurred at PrepCom 1, Phase 2.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. The precedent in Phase 1 when petitions and statements were
>> developed and called for signatures was to raise the petition
>> in Plenary and place the petition or statement outside the
>> civil society meeting room for endorsement by willing and
>> accredited organisations.
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. The Working Group on Working Methods (WGWM) was tasked with
>> developing procedures to be placed before the Plenary in a
>> meeting where it would be convened to take a decision on the
>> proposed procedures. The CSB has previously expressed concern
>> that the working group is moving slowly but understands that
>> any group can only move as fast as it’s participants. It was
>> also noted that this work has been left to a few people,
>> despite continuous calls for participation.
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. On advice from one of the Coordinators of the WGWM, that both
>> charters are nearing completion, it was decided to circulate to
>> Plenary the Draft Civil Society Bureau Charter and the Draft
>> Plenary Charter, as soon as possible, for discussion. These
>> documents will exist as WSIS contributions to evolving practise
>> in multi-stakeholder UN processes.
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. It is noted that an option for the Plenary meeting on Friday
>> 23^rd could have been to use the ‘straw poll’ technique that
>> has been used this week in Content & Themes, to asses the level
>> of agreement & disagreement with the statement on HRIC. This
>> however, could only have been an internal indication to guide
>> the Plenary and Human Rights Caucus, authors of the statement
>> and does not solve the need for a clear process around
>> statements that call for endorsement.
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. The CSB believes that based on previous practice the Statement
>> on HRIC should have been raised, even read and that a call for
>> endorsements could then have been made, along with a statement
>> as to where organisations could sign up.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. The CSB is concerned about the positioning of the Human Rights
>> Caucus within the working mechanisms of WSIS Civil Society. The
>> Caucus has often been asked to join the CSB where operational
>> matters could be discussed, but has declined. This invitation
>> is extended again. While the prerogative to not participate is
>> certainly not questioned, we note that the Human Rights Caucus
>> has never presented a consensus agreement from the caucus on
>> the reasons for declining.
>>
>>
>>
>> It is further noted that the strategies deployed by the Human Rights
>> Caucus have consistently resulted in a raising of the temperature
>> within civil society but have not been accompanied by a mechanism to
>> allow for discussion around the debates. One aspect of this that has
>> been especially apparent in Phase 2 of WSIS, is the limited time
>> allowed in Human Rights meetings for people from the nations being
>> criticised to respond. This in turn causes further tension and limits
>> understanding of the various perspectives. The CSB raises this
>> concern since it is procedural and there are other process options
>> that could result in greater understanding. The CSB has attempted to
>> create forums where open debate would have been able to unfold, but
>> the Human Rights Caucus has not been willing to participate. The CSB
>> finds itself with limited options to deal with this matter but places
>> on record that initiatives have been attempted.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Philippe Dam
>> **CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
>> **11, Avenue de **la Paix**
>> CH-1202 **Geneva**
>> Tel: +41 22 301 1000
>> Fax: +41 22 301 2000
>> E-mail: **wsis at ngocongo.org* <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org>*
>> Website: **www.ngocongo.org <BLOCKED::http://www.ngocongo.org>** *
>>
>> * *
>>
>> *The Conference of NGOs (**CONGO) is an international, membership
>> association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United
>> Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major
>> objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the
>> world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global
>> concern. For more information see our website atwww.ngocongo.org
>> <BLOCKED::http://www.ngocongo.org/>***
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
More information about the Plenary
mailing list