[WSIS CS-Plenary] Proposed Guidelines for CS Plenary

[conchita poncini]

Congratulations Ramin and Rik (alphabetical order)
and Working Methods Caucus.fcor all your efforts

The "Guidelines" is very systematically organized, unambiguous and concise.
Do you want us to select from the options?  I think we should.  On Chairs, I
opt for "C" but at any rate, if defeated, there should always be a gender
balance; On Decision-Making  Option "A"; on Convocation,  Option "A";
Follow-up Procedure - Option "A";  Quorum - I agree with 33%,  and simplde
majority.

Thanks once again - See you tomorrow

Yours in solidarity,
Conchita.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org>
To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2005 6:22 PM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Proposed Guidelines for CS Plenary


> Dear Friends,
>
> We the Working Group on Working Methods (WGWM) respectfully submit for
your
> consideration the proposed ?Guidelines/Framework/Charter of the Civil
> Society Plenary?.
>
> We recommend that at the plenary in the morning, that this document be
> accepted as the draft text describing our working methods of the CS
plenary
> sessions subject to further amendments. We welcome your general comments
> during the morning plenary and more detailed inputs at the next WGWM
> meeting tomorrow at noon in the NGO Lounge.
>
> We intended to keep the rules and procedures as concise and clear as
> possible, but with enough detail to give some more explicit guidelines for
> our plenary meetings. We have put forwarded some ?Options? for the plenary
> to decide on and in some cases made our own recommendations, after long
> consultations since February 2005.
>
> Our goal is for this document to be adopted by Wednesday, 28 September, at
> the Civil Society Plenary in the morning.
>
> Best,
> Ramin & Rik
> Co-Facilitators on behalf of the entire WGWM
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
> version 26. September 2005
>
> 1. Mission
>
> ?The Mission of the Civil Society Plenary (CSP) is to bring all Civil
> Society Organizations (CSOs) and individuals together for information
> exchange and reporting; in special cases, an extraordinary CSP meeting can
> be organized by a straw poll process for strategic, procedural and general
> civil society related decision-making purposes.?
>
> 2. Objectives
> ?     to provide information exchange and reporting by the different CS
> structures
> ?     to foster global civil society decision-making
> ?     to encourage a sense of global civil society community for CS actors
> participating at WSIS
>
> 3. Goals
> ?     to provide a space for dialogue and information exchange
> ?     to enhance the coordination and effectiveness of  CS structures in
> the WSIS
> ?     to develop consensual positions on specific issues where possible
>
> 4. Terms of References
>
> There are two main terms of references for the CSP. A) It is to provide a
> space for information exchange, and B) as a decision-making body.
>
> A)  Information Exchange Plenary Session
> ?     to organize regular CSP meetings, preferably at least once every
> morning during PrepCom meeting
> ?     to allocate the time for the different CS groupings to report back
to
> the CSP
>
> B) Decision-Making Plenary Session
> ?     The CSP is the most representative body of civil society
> participating in the WSIS; as such, decisions of the Plenary take
> precedence over other bodies.
> ?     The CSP is the ultimate CS organ to make decisions for all attending
> CSOs.
> ?     The role of the CSP is to promote debate and greater transparency in
> the organisation of civil society.
> ?     When convened, it is the ultimate civil society authority in the
WSIS
> process, in relation to the mandate and scope of the specific event.
>
> 5. Membership
>
> ?     It is open to all accredited civil society entities.
> ?     Other actors are welcomed to attend as observers, without the right
> to vote.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6. Chairing
>
> The CSP is chaired by two individuals with expertise in facilitation and
> chairing, and knowledgeable about the WSIS processes and issues.
>
> 6.1 Roles:
>
> ?     to facilitate discussion and debate
> ?     to recognize the different speakers, respecting the diversity of
> voices
> ?     the chairs cannot address content, and do not advocate positions,
and
> ought to remain neutral and unbiased
>
> 6.2 Selection of the Chairs:
>
> o     Option A)* open nomination process during CS Plenary (taking into
> account regional, gender and linguistic balance).
> o     Option B) rotation among regional caucuses
> o     Option C) rotation among CSB members
>
> [* Recommendation: Option A) The WMWG recommends that the CSB would
propose
> interim chairs to open the nomination at the first plenary session, and
two
> individuals would be selected.]
>
>
> 7. Decision-Making Plenary Sessions
>
> Decisions on internal CS organisational matters, or issues put forward by
> the CSB or CTG, are referred to the CSP for adoption.
>
> The decision-making plenary session is chaired by two individuals with
> expertise in facilitation, the ability to synthesize different positions,
> and knowledgeable about the content and themes as well as the processes
and
> issues of WSIS. The chairs are supported by two secretaries of the CSB
> Secretariat.
>
> 7.1 Roles:
> ?     to facilitate, consolidate and synthesise the content of the
> discussion
> ?     to recognize all the different speakers, respecting the diversity of
> voices
> ?     the chairs can address content, but cannot advocate any position,
but
> ought to be able to facilitate the different positions, bringing forward
> solutions and compromises.
>
> 7.2 Selection of the Chairs:
>
> o     Option A)* rotation among CSB members, subject to the approval of
the
> CSP
> o     Option B) rotation among regional caucuses
> o     Option C) open nomination process during CS Plenary (taking into
> account regional, gender and linguistic balance).
>
> [*Recommendation: Option A. The WMWG recommends that the CSB should
prepare
> a list of possible chairs, which would be presented to the CSP for
approval
> at the extra-ordinary session, when convened.]
>
>
>
>
> 7.3 Convocation:
>
> ?     An extra-ordinary decision-making session can be convened when
> necessary by the CSP by a straw poll or put forward by the CTG or the CSB.
>
> ?     The straw poll is to be used for determining whether or not there is
> a need to hold an extra-ordinary decision-making session. A ?straw poll?
is
> a closed question (?yes? or ?no?) asked to the CSP, in order to get the
> information by the people present by a show of hands to assess the general
> feeling regarding a specific question/issue. The Chairs assesses whether
or
> not there is enough support for the outcome through .
> o     Option A) simple majority
> o     Option B) rough consensus
> o     Option C) two thirds majority
>
> [*Recommendation: Option A. A simple majority should be a sufficient
> measure of interest to hold an extra-ordinary session.]
>
> ?     Additional follow-up procedure:
> o     Option A) In this case the CSB ought to meet immediately, in order
to
> assess that fair and inclusive conditions were met during the straw poll.
> The decision to convene must be confirmed by the CSB.
> o     Option B) In this case the CSB ought to meet immediately, and make
> its own recommendations to the CSP whether fair and inclusive conditions
> were met during the straw poll.
> o     Option C) There is no other procedural follow-up necessary. Delete
> all of the above.
>
> ?     An extra-ordinary decision-making session ought to be announced
> widely at least 24 hours in advance, including the time and the space of
> the meeting and in emergency situations at least [three/six] hours in
> advance, after the final decision has been made to hold an extra-ordinary
> session.
>
> ?     A reasonable time ought to be set and a deadline given for online
> participants to express their opinions and positions and to contribute to
> the debate.
>
> 7.4 Quorum*:
>
> ?     A quorum is the minimum number of entities of all the CS entities
> necessary to be present at an extra-ordinary decision-making session.
>
> o     Option A) The quorum must be checked and validated by the two Chairs
> as a first point of order.
> o     Option B) confirmation of the quorum is made on a non-objection
basis
>
> ?     A quorum accounts for a [third (33%) / half (50%)] of the accredited
> and registered number of the CS entities present in the event.
>
> ?     If there no quorum, no decision can be made.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 7.5 Decision-Making and Voting:
>
> ?     The first aim is to reach a decision by consensus.
>
> ?     If no consensus can be reached, any member from the floor can ask
for
> the vote. The voting is based on a two third (2/3) majority of the CS
> entities present in the room.
>
> ?     There is one vote per accredited entity.
>
> ?     If there is no clear two thirds (2/3) majority, there can be a 2nd
or
> 3rd round of voting.
>
> o     Option A) If there is still no two thirds (2/3) majority after the
> 3rd round, then the Chair shall call for another extra-ordinary
> decision-making session, under the same conditions as expressed above.
> o     Option B) If there is still no two thirds (2/3) majority after the
> 3rd round, then no decision will be made.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>