[CS Bureau] TR: Envoi d'un message : , ._Notes from CSB-Cape Town Meeting, ._Part-2-Notes from CSB Cape Town Meeting, CSB_CapeTown_minutes, Minutes_CSB_Capetown, Notes from CSB-Cape Town Meeting, Part-2-Notes from CSB Cape Town Meeting, Part-2-revised-Notes from CSB

Wed Dec 15 20:38:33 GMT 2004

Renate Bloem
President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO)
11, Avenue de la Paix
CH-1202 Geneva
Tel: +41 22 301 1000
Fax: +41 22 301 2000
E-mil: rbloem at ngocongo.org
Website: 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 at www.ngocongo.org

Reminder: CONGO Postal Address Has Changed

We will soon be unable to receive mail at our old address at the Palais des
Nations in Geneva.  So please make sure to update your records with CONGO's
new Geneva office postal address: CP 50, 1211 Genéve 20, Switzerland.  Our
physical office address is 11, Avenue De La Paix, 1st Floor, 1202 Genéve,
Switzerland.
YJ and all

Please find all notes attached
Renata
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: .DS_Store
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6148 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/DS_Store.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ._Notes from CSB-Cape Town Meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 82 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/_NotesfromCSB-CapeTownMeeting.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ._Part-2-Notes from CSB Cape Town Meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 82 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/_Part-2-NotesfromCSBCapeTownMeeting.obj
-------------- next part --------------
CSB Meeting:

Minutes Agenda: 

Agenda No. 1. –Welcome and apologies:

Welcome by Olivier:

Masmoud – wanted a discussion about 

..UN reforms discussion

Robert does not want UN discussions as we have urgent CSB business

Other items under AOB

Reforms of the UN business should be discussed.

Cardoso report is important – any items related to the UN we put then together and discuss later – political related issues – she proposes that we divide sessions for other sessions – or issues.

UN reforms – to be discussed as AOB.

Agenda No. 2. – Introductions:

1.	Robert from NGLS
2.	Mercel from Francophonie
3.	YJ Park from the Networks coalition
4.	Joseph Sarr – Senegal local authorities – Professor – University of Dakar
5.	Mous – Tunis
6.	Masmoud – Tunisia
7.	Ben Jamaa – Tunisia – Science and Technonolgy
8.	Nnenna Nwakama – Africa civil society 
9.	Christine – Indigenous Family – From Sweden
10.	Wolfgan Kwetchwater – Philapropic institutions – Denmark, also from the Internet Governance
11.	Francis – Education and 
12.	Miguel from Gender caucus
13.	Robert Guerra – North America/Europe
14.	Tracey Naughton – Media
15.	Derrick Corburg – Observer
16.	Emmanuel Njenga – APC 
17.	Renata Blom – Congo
18.	Viola Krebbs – Volunteers
19.	Olivier Nana Nzepa – Africa civil society caucus 
20.	Titi – Youth Caucus 

Agenda Item No. 3

Viola says we have come along way, I think phase 1 of the summit created a structure of the wsis and now we have reached end of phase 1, but now there are challenges for phase two, so how are we going deal with challenges of dealing with the second phase. 

So in summary, next phase – we need to take on board the lessons from the first phase – some things went very well, such as like what happened on plenary – we much now conclude the phase one – check what gaps and bridge them as constructive to move to phase two.

Renata: 
We are all aware of what happened during the phase 1, CSB was created, we have been successful – governments have recognized the role of civil society and how we have worked. 

Renata says the CSB process has come along ways, misunderstandings, mistrust and then we moved forward to coordination with the other groupings – such as the content and themes and things worked well. 

While there are also other problems, such as capacity problems and we also still need to build confidence, trust – define priorities as we prepare to move to the next precom. 

We need now to prepare the next move: some questions:
-	Who is sitting on the bureau?
-	Now with the next WSIS – we need to build a very strong civil society – we need a direct discussion on things that people need to reflect upon and question about
-	More like a purpose 

Robert – need says we need to allow people to air their input on discussion

Item 4. Review and Family Reports:

Olivier: Olivier says CSB has been very successful and now we are at the point of taking stock and analysing way forward – now the have to decide – we now have to construct our future – we have to review our structures, review how our other groups are working and so forth.

Olivier refers to a document 
it is crucial we refer to structures – which is in document minutes of the bureau meeting, 26 June 2004. 

Olivier, now we are taking the point on Gender  - taking on procedures – refer document – functions of the CS and NGO bureau.

Viola: remind all of us what structures we are in place during phase 1 and what we have inherited for phase two.

Viola: 

Can I say in plenary – everyday was at the meeting – all was welcome to the plenary and that is where decisions were taken.

We all acknowledge the problems of wsis phase 1 where civil society was not acknowledged.

First there were the focal points, then the content and themes and then the CSB which only dealt with procedures – mainly issues of participation and so forth.

So this is summary of what we have up to now, for prepcom 1 of phase 2 – during Tunis – we are told things are not as tight as they should have been and now we have to work on this. 

So this procedural question was taken up in hammanet – we needed a report from each family to evaluate what worked well and what did not ?

So now I leave now to Renata to clarify on procedures

Renata: 

Congo as an umbrella body has been asked to come rules of procedures – see draft which has been prepared – as an introduction to reach to each caucus and working group can take on forward.  This is voluntary code of conduct or principles on to world conference
please take a look at the document 

So this is merely a introduction of where this come about 
.

Olivier:

We have seen the bureau, it is something that has been respected..in fact of the offices has been a major event ..and I need to tell to tell you your efforts has been appreciated. Just three days ago at the ICANN meeting, participants recalled the major role – in the debate – it is important then how we are going to be organize organizations . We have duty to talk about how to organize ourselves to meet the expectations.

Rami: 

Gives a brief representations of the working methods.

Working group set up in Berlin, as a result of internet governance nomination process and there were problems 
..mostly about representations 

So effectively – decided to set up a working methods working group, initially there were six people, now the group has 15 members.

The idea about the working group is not to give one specific recommendation  - basically is to define what works and what does not work. Then get best practices – what are are principles that we want – representation, accountability, transparency and so forth.

Think about what are the questions we need to solve, decision making, who can create a caucus, who is the caucus report to e.t.c..

The purpose of working group is to give different options and allow people to choose.

Just to highlight some of the issues that came up:

What is the authority of the plenary?
What is the authority of the bureau?
How can the bureau reform itself, does it have authority/legitimacy to reform itself?

Now list serve has now been created, no substantial discussions have taken place yet. 

Olivier:

Hopes he has underscored the important challenges which face us at this meeting, the mandate which has been given to this group has to be discussed – and deadlines set – and for structures.

Procedures: Youth suggestions:

Youth caucus  - job too much for one person: Three levels recommended

-	Policy – Robert Sagoon
-	Communication - 
-	Overall facilitator - Titi  - does on-ground lobbying 

Youth believes membership is an open process. 

Selection:
-	involvement of first phase 
-	active participation 
-	12 applicants 

There are then advisory committees
Issues working group 
Communications committee 

Issues: 

Youth would like to identify which are the members of the CSB – what are the procedures of establishing structures.

JY Park:

She says there confusion – there are families and caucuses 

One of the challenges for the networking and coalition members is accreditation – there has been a problem of accredition for individuals and members have had to resort to joining other organization to attend UN process. 

Local Authorities: 

Joseph Sarr: 

Thanks and welcome, since prepcom 2 he has been participating as when the bureau was set up. He was not involved first but was alternate. 

So as far as the structure of the local authorities is concerned – participation at the summit they prepared inputs for the declaration and action plan at the meeting in Lyon. The same will happen for the second phase – they will have a meeting and present the results during the Tunis summit.

So about the changes and representation at the Bureau, the position of the local authorities – it is not coordinated by the government. Like Senegal – local authorities are volunteers. 

Science and Technology: 

The caucus talked about the structures and what was proposed is that to the bureau was vital for coordination – procedures – nothing to do with content. 

The bureau must remain the intermediary with the govts and other structures

The facilitator for the WSIS must remain

So really the constitution has to reevaluated to assess the current families and review.

The running of the bureau has to reformalised – such as permanent secretariat which trilingual speakers – English, French and Spanish.

A bureau is convened by secretariat – as called by the members such as 50 percent members has a right to call the bureau to the meeting.

The chairmanship is for one meeting and is revolving chair.

-	-------

Philanthropic: 

Wolfgang says – they made two big outreach efforts – during phase 1 and sent out proposals and invitation to join the family. They were very negative responses – they have their priorities and have their independent.

Wolfgang – talked about Compact Foundation – mostly of European for Third World Countries. 

After Prepcom 2, thinking of doing an outreach effort.

Comments on structures, about civil society and the bureau – support what was said by Viola and Renata – about working methods and working group – we need to be realistic about building a structure. 

Something to to beyond beyond Tunis, build by small steps and small steps for a longer term – really we have now only moved from Step A to B, we are going to go a long way 
C, D
.X, Z for the end of the century.

We should encourage forward..based on realistic moving forward. 

Olivier: 

We have heard some very wise words and we have to move on and co take a break and continue with reports from each caucus. 

Education and Academic Caucus:

He says that it is not easy to find an alternative to in the academic community.  

The problem is how does the have a link between the procedure and content and how do you merge different functions and working groups. 

Renata: 

Renata says that the content and themes group have to permanent representative on the bureau.

Gender Caucus: 

Having followed the WSIS process from the beginning and as the one of the candidate of the gender caucus focal point. And also representing the Latin American Caucus.  I also want to clarify that Olinca is right now in an APC meeting. 

One of the issues I would like to bring into your attention to challenges such as an example of what happened within the LAC – an inbalance of what knowledge happens between the international process..and what it means to be a legitimate participant in an UN process. 

About the Gender Caucus – since the beginning – Gender caucus has been established as a multistakeholder caucus. As such what is happening is similar to what the youth caucus is carrying out it activities ..we have particular people in charge of different activity such as tranining, and we also have a regional focus as well that in a way informs the caucus as a whole and on the steering committee. Even though we have been involved in a civil society meeting as a whole, we had a more structured process. 

During the first phase – we had a very active online process – consultation which brought forth our current strucuture. Now we are finishing our structure process. UNIFEM is actively involved in the gender caucus. 

In the second phase we will be more involved in research and advocacy activity, and perspective of gender into the phase one, because we had also in our caucus – gender strategies working group that is independent and collaborating. 

Olivier: 

Introduces Robert Guerra.

Robert Guerra :

He says – the thing have been moving forward. There are sometimes misunderstandings and seen differently by different people

Some quick comments: 

-	Purpose of the meeting: 

There are challenges
.the bureau needs to have clear definition of what it is what does and what it does not do?

Then we have to set out goals and firmly as possible.

We need real commitment from bureau members. We have to realistic, identify key partners and how we can define way forward. 

-	issue or representivity 
-	get tasks for the wsis phase 2
-	Get job done for wsis phase 2

Review of CS structures

-	no need to reinvent the wheel 
-	there are many publications and models for structures
-	There are docs from NGLS 
-	Other resources like civil society in the information society – how the information age has affected civil society 

About the North America and Europe:

Given to an organization – computer professionals for social responsibility – now upgraded the status from wsis to ecosoc status for UN.

Outreach needs to be done. 

CPSR tries to do outreach for participation.

In regards to region as a whole – there is a germany group – have met with them – they have very consultative group. They do not really understand the Bureau and therefore the CSB needs to come up with a statement of what really the bureau is. 

In conclusion, wsis is still not visible to many people and anyway the north America and Europe has a very large group and has to deal with this huge group of interest stakeholders.

Outreach is very important. 

About serving chair, revolving chair in the bureau – it is a very large bureau and it is rather for important to have a executive committee rather than an evolving bureau chair. 

Olivier: 

Introduces Tracey
..

Tracey:

Representing the media caucus, it is a complex caucus – there are public broadcasters, community media, and commercial media – very complex and wide-ranging of participants. 

There has been many problems such as the participating of commercial broadcasters in the civil society caucus. 

There was also the working party ?  Within the caucus – then the working group become a caucus – so now there is some sort of two caucus within the media caucus..

There are 4 coordination, chair and 3 vice chairs. To share our tasks and facilitation.

There are clear set of principles such as the Article 19 docs – all which go well .

On the bureau – she thinks – it has worked very well. Having heard what happened in Berlin
.ideas has to be laid down and identified how move forward. 

So one more comment, media has a concern  - it was expected to be a media machine, that we did not have time to write press release for everyone. 

Olivier:

Now introduces

.Renata:

Renata: 

The conference of NGOs created 1948 to have NGOs participation at the UN. The problem is now that WSIS does not outreach to wider NGOs and therefore the main interest is to move on space and create space for NGO participation at the UN.

The need to clarify the clear picture what the bureau is about – procedures and not content.

As we go into implementation – hence the need for procedures 

Enters 

Adama Samasseko

Olivier introduces Adama Samasseko

Adama Samasseko:

Coming to the idea of a dream, if we dream alone it is just a dream – but together we touch reality. We have started early, but this is along march forward.

Vision that takes partnership. 

-	We have reached the fragile point, there are differences and we have to identify priorities as civil society members are more than governments.

The CSB in the second phase is very important to represent the multistakeholders.

Geneva was a success and now we much work night and day to consolidate these hopes. The great concern is that we together much keep this spirit alive.

Viola: - Volunteers Family.

It has been a great honour to follow such a recognized person to have with us this morning and the solidarity and we have to continue rowing this boat together. As a focal point to the volunteers – it is a diversified group. The volunteer family has worked hard to develop a declaration – a framework for action. 

There are many challenges and we know many are flexible now we determine how to move on in this space.

Disabilities Family:

She is attending the first time. They held a global forum on the information society – working together with groups of disability people, and now she is listening carefully about new initiations on the WSIS process and want to bring new solutions and also about structure that will be created. 

She is happy to be part of this group and hope the efforts of this meeting will be rewarded.

Asia Caucus – Izumi Aizu.

He is happy to participant and was asked by friends to represent focal point of Asia by friends from Al Alegre. 

On issues:

-	Funding
-	Language and Culture

Appreciate the efforts of bureau, and the work done.

There is not much visible activity at this point of time, majority of the messages from Alan Alegre sending out minutes from the civil society meetings. 

Some challenges:
-	Asia is populous 
-	Economic disparities in Asia

Civil Society activity in North America, Africa sending similar messages that Asia identifies with.

About procedures – if they are very complicated, then it makes it hard for the under resourced to follow through.

Olivier on the Africa Caucus:

About the Africa focal point, we are network for communication and we have to get used to communicate with people who we cannot see and so to anticipate the future and this is what we did in the summit of Geneva and Tunis. 

In Geneva we have had elections in Geneva and set up coordination in different regions in countries and in the working groups. 

We have been able to set up systems – we have made great efforts and set up groups and we are well represented here at this meeting. 

I would you all to be ambassadors of this new vision – and would like to suggest we inject new blood and I would say that we are ready.

Masmoud:

He will be concise:

-	Civil society in Tunis – we can speak on a consensus – that the majority of the people can agree on – he keeps meeting people of a very diverse of people and know they are all eager to meet people on a wide variety of people
-	Tunisia is an emerging country – holding the summit in Tunisia – it is thus Tunis is very very proud Tunis is happy to welcome the civil society into this capital that has been associated with knowledge over the past.

More points:

As far as some areas of sensitivity are concerned, on the bureau – in Bamako 2002 – Africa civil society took off – it was a synergy and as far as the bureau is concerned – we would like to actual bureau structure stay as it is with just a few twitches here and there
so continuity is important at least till 2005 – so then onward it can be reformed

The third point is that the Africa group includes Tunisia and that Tunisia is an Arab country that goes beyond Africa. Many things have changes  - Damascus – we have seen ground breaking participation of civil society and it recognizes that the free participation. 

Also we much appreciate the need of diversity and ideas

So we have seen changes, there was a panel in Syria.

He would also like to highlight the fact of Arab nations in the Africa region and civil society developments in the Arab region.

Robert on point of Amir.

Amir expresses his regret of not able able to attend the meeting from Amir – there is problems in IRAN  - his people has been arrested. 

Mansef: Liaison to the Second Phase of the WSIS process:

So in summary: 

Within the executive secretariat of the civil society there has been division of role. The executive Director of WSIS – we have to play the role of the facilitator – we want to facilitate civil society and even though we do not want to involved in politics we do not want to be indifferent to the politics. 

We want inclusiveness. 

In conclusion, we have seen what exclusion brings – like seattle – I would like to say that we want to balance between countries of the south, developing countries and balance of languages, diversity and all – it is the hallmark of the summit.

After lunch – we do item No. 6

Indigenous group has already sent a report to Viola.

---------------

After Lunch Session:

Adama Samasseko – speech in French:

Third Partnership – it is not egalitarianism – civil society is not government – now civil society has an opportunity for civil society to take part in the partnership where each has a role to play. 

Olivier:

Two hours left and now we have to accomplish some results.

Viola:

This morning exchange was necessarily – but now we need to streamline – discussions – three minutes maximum. 

Few more items on the agenda: 

-- 

?Point of Order: 

The point of Amir – how could – will we react ?

Wolfgang: Everyone agrees we should do something, one or two volunteers should do something – half a page or so and message – can be adopted tomorrow morning.

Robert: Given the particular circumstances – we should be careful in terms of communiqué – make sure what we say is correct. 

Attention is needed and not necessarily endander the situation.

Renata: Very good proposal – we have to take caution of safety of the people there – we should not do anything without informing him. We need to know how to move very very carefully. 

Nnenna: This principle should be discussed on the working group on methods. 

Robert: supports Nnenna in such an issue goes to the working group on methods.

Moving on now to point 6. 

-- 

Agenda No. 6.

Olivier says this has already been touched on and people can add if they want – but be very precise.

Ben Jamma:

The first point is we discussed a lot but no essentials, Robert spoke about the executive committee in the bureau – this would make the bureau  more heavier and would suffocate the decision making processes..

Viola: The bureau is composed of families – they do not deal with caucus issues – content is debated in the caucuses.

Renata: 

Do we separate/reform ?

Reform – who sits on the bureau?  Many say the legitimacy is not given – we have not yet discussed this – those on the bureau are they taking the responsibility are they doing what - ?

???.There is a different between content and procedure – families are based on content – but bureau follows logic of content.

Wolfgang: The reasons why families were formed – was institutions – while contents are not institutions. We should be strict and continue to separate between content and procedures. 

We should avoid mixing the two:

Janet: - Internet Governance Caucus: - bureau should be limited to administrative issues –the bureau reflect what goes on in civil society organizations.  We need people who knows what is going and support other people to become active. 

Ideally the composition of the bureau should to some extent reflect the content working mechanisms.

Robert: Some suggestions – what is very needed – more documentation 
What the bureau is doing 
What is the contact information 
>From activities – forums – posting of events is information
On linkages – phase 1 we had content and themes – the question is – two working groups – do we wish to invite those to the membership of the bureau to share our needs to that space. 

In terms of reforms – we need to very efficient – now and in February – we need to have subcommittees that can come up with quick positions – we need to be very clear if there is someone who is maintaining content .

Tracey: 

There is an obvious connection between content and bureau
.since people on the bureau also deal with content .

People coming in – we need to accommodate them.

Magally: 

I will follow tracey’s interventions – something that comes to mind, in a way is how civil society organizes itself in the wsis and in a way limits our duty to act. We are very much concretrated on levels.  So there are particular labels of families – not very appropriate to the work done by UN already. 

Something that is important is the creativity that we have in terms of how we name things – we use terms that really important and that can differente things 

It is very important to really use the richness that people bring to the table – but really upto the bureau to make sure that  - we had a good opportunity to move things forward. So our labels should not be limited to our action

Ben Jamaa: 

I think we are not only in agreement on traceys proposals – also about bureau needs to ?

I will agree with janet that members of the bureau should know what is going on and should be involved in the procedures of what is going on and not just sit on the bureau.

Janet: members of the bureau should also reflect the activities of the civil society 

Ben Jamma: Bureau disagrees and says bureau should only be concerned about participation and not content.

The bureau 

Derrick: The problem is representation – so if there is a problem of having content people represented on the bureau and others not.

Nnenna: Some people in the bureau are working on voluntary basis and this is a difficult situation.

Olivier:

Markus Kummer walks in:  Chair of the internet governance working group.

Markus: 

What he thought interesting for us – is to assess where we are: First is to emphasize that the working group is not an isolated phenomena – many activities have taken place, many bodies have been involved. 

The WGIG is not working in vacuum is inclusive. No need to go into details about the composition, some are present here
the composition reflects very broad basis consultation process. 

Important characterisitic is that it reflects a multistakeholders, regional balance. 

Civil society has been engaged from the beginning – people like Janet, Adam – dialogue through the process. 

He also noticed the civil society statements of what WGIG would look like – he supported this.  

So first meeting was held in November 23-25, and an open ended conversation – aim of the meeting was to get started – set roadmap for the future – scope of work and priorities. 

Objectives were achieved, working group has developed identity and members of the working group have found a good working relationship. Work has started on substantial issues 
one of the issues coming up is the developmental aspects of internet governance.

There is also agreement that internet governance also needs to be seen in the process of ict for development, millennium development goals and wsis. Also noted the need to developing countries, building capacity issues.

Concretely the issues of draft outline – in contextual framework – which may change overtime. It starts with an introduction, a chapter of definition of internet governance. 

These are working definitions. 

There is a chapter on current situation, current actors – then onwards on inventory of public policy issues on internet governance. 

Then it is important to look at future developments and scenarios, such as IPV6, looking at possible scenarios, not adequate to look at just current problems but to issues as they arise. 

Last chapter would be about documents adopted in Geneva, proposals as appropriate. Listening to the group – there will be proposals – functions and chapters. 

Last also would be a chapter on capacity building recommendations. 

As regards the inventory of public policy – the secretariat posted a model – people felt the model was not appropriate – members felt this was not the right model and as such it was a way to start a discussion.

Then people agreed to use the language using the Geneva WSIS documents – and now we have four essential categories..

Equitable disstribution
Access for all
Functions of the internet
Multiligualism
Content 
All other issues for consideration

The next steps are based on these categories – based on feedback on questionnaire we received from the UNICT-TASKFORCE.

Members were asked to feedback on the methodology, next phase of the work we will ask the members of the group to develop issue papers – and they have been asked to comment on areas where members will issues comments.

We have also sent out a template for members to fill in – another important element – each of these issues will be measured on the against the declaration. Among these cross cutting issues – management of the internet should be multilateral, democratic ..

That international internet governance should be addressed in a coordinated manner. 

The group that will develop these papers, there is agreement that papers will be ready by 20th of January and people can ask for questions. 

We did not find definite methodology – it is clear 

Recognize that civil society is more advanced than governments in using online methodologies.

Inclusion is an issue – also the issue of some desire to have a private space as some felt would want to air view but not want to be quoted in public. This is a shared by most key members. 

Most meetings will be open meetings. Civil society members made the point that open should also include online webcasts. Also the feeling of the group – that we have to show that all spaces can use new methodologies – inclusiveness as possible. 

We have not have a definite package ready for the methods – but we are working on this – Adam Peake, Karen Banks and Vittorio.  

He also liked the participation of online methodologies – such as one from Derrick of Syracuse University. 

The next meeting will be in February, one proposal – 15-16 – very important. It will be a two day meeting, four sessions – morning/afternoon – along four major categories identified above. 

The main agenda will be identification of these major issues – preparation of a preliminary report. 

After the February meeting – work will continue – then two more meeting in April and June – for final drafting. A proposal to hold a meeting in Brazil. A meeting in the south – also Egypt has sent an invitation in May. Does not fit in the calendar of events – there will be a need on the members of the group.  So could be held immeadiately after the argentina icann meeting and so held a meeting of WGIG in brazil thereafter.

There are series of meeting which could allow some regional work – and so hopefully – as a result. 
------------

Next Item:

Olivier: Any Questions: 

-	Derrick: 

Three comments – on capacity building – during the ITU meeting on capacity building – but when a panel – many people went outside. So feels that we should make sure the issue is not dropped on the agenda.

ICANN – does not do enough to manage people to attend the meetings – it is would important to find some ways to draw on resources

Robert: 

Talks of the issue of working methods – how can these methods be shared – would be appreciated.

YJ Park:

Reminds that there has been interesting  - would like to know the strategy of the working group between those who want to bring institutional change and those from civil society groups who want to bring the very broad issues of internet governance and does not want a necessarily institional change.

Markus: 

There are those focused on ICANN issues only – members agreed we start from broad perspectives and we narrow issues down. And so not focus on ICANN issues only.  We have not yet defined internet governance and as such we have started a process and we hope to get there eventually.

About methods – there is cross fertilization opportunities  – the WGIG will learn from the civil society and vice versa.

On the capacity building, depends on who is in the room..regulators – less interested – best find the right actors to pick it up.  ITU does not do much – but they do more in terms of international organizations.

AIZU Izumi:

Comments that the composition of members is really good – there are good membership of civil society organizations.  The real challenge may be on transparency issues.

Markus – agree the issue of transparency/confidentiality will be important to allow the flow of discussion and especially for governments who do not want what they say to be reported back to their capital.

Olivier:

Thanks Markus ..

Nnenna: 

Most people are working on voluntary basis, it is a difficult position. We should know/have all the reports from the bureau sent to the plenary list. People on the bureau should know about the accountability and responsibilities of the bureau representatives.

The first phase was declaration – so now the second phase – how does the CSB correspond to the second phase.

Viola: 

We need more reports from the families.

Moustafa:

A few questions – he wants reply:

1.	Do we have a secretariat?
2.	Do we maintain the same structure
3.	Should we rotate the chairmanship?

He wants answers
.

Renata to explain possibilities:

Renata: 

We heard from Markus some interesting: Some things:

.it is vital we have open discussions 

Second the bureau is for procedures – but it needs to reflect the way the caucuses work 

Also agrees with tracey that this is not the same way we were, now things are different – we have different working groups.

In terms of seeing all these processes, there is a way to provide services to the bureau – where can civil society interact – provide services for the second prepcom.

So what we hope is have these available. 

Secretariat will be Congo and ICV. 

Viola:

For prepcom two we are going to have interpretation volunteers like now. 

I think the executive secretariat is also collaborating with the ICV – the more people are commited to the process – the better. Everybody takes responsibility such as working groups.

The families should be members of the bureau – if we need further caucuses they can linked 

Tracey:

About the split in the structures – because things are not clear – another caucuses came up ?

How do we then take on such issues..

Tracey says the families should be forced to coordinate within the caucus. 

Joseph Sarr:

Thinking aloud – when the CSB was created, it was major news – members of the bureau should do a little bit more? 

As far as representation of the bureau is concerned – can be individual or organization – as far as declarations are concerned – to be members of the bureau is not enough
?

YJ Park:

About the coordination of the civil society in general – the CSB and content the themes group. We should extend our scope – for example the internet governance issues should be extended to the other members/caucuses

Christine: 

She is missing some information from the documents – Viola to check on this.

Then she have on the minutes – content and themes – I would not like to see a repetition of what happened on Tunis – the content and themes would have an intervention and we have idea what they are going to say. 

I mean content should be read to the plenary before presented. 

It was suggested the observers could be attend the meetings, but the chair only decides when they can speak, but then another part says bureau is open and all can attend. 

This is clarified that members can speak through their focal points. - Viola

Last remark under G. When it comes to – that the bureau is only – functions are only procedures and organizational matters – two examples shows some problem in this – problem in Tunis – and now the problem of Amir – these issues are not procedures only
they are more..

Janet – says other issues can be considered procedure

Christine: Another issues is not possible to be procedural – when meetings happen with other bureau – other bureaus do not see us procedural matters – but maybe more – so we need to reflect on this.

Renata: who is responsible for statements – that statements should come from caucuses – they are not dependant on plenary – they come from caucuses 

At the meeting in Tunis – it was introduced as a civil society intervention – not caucus – so was the problem.

Viola: sometimes when there are problems – it is possible for 

Francis: 

RAMI: A point for the working methods.. 

Supports what tracey said – make some suggestions – logical review – would not only require adding caucuses but also substract caucuses. 

Proposals:

-	CSB Secretariat – will be supported by Congo, ICV and NGLS supported, roles will be clarified
-	Information and outreach – NGLS 
-	All family reports can be sent to 

-	In terms of civil society reform

-	tracey logical review 

-	those that deliver reports and so are active

-	those in the second phase – who have not died are alive

Mosef: 

We need the support of the CSB – at the eve of prepcom 2 if we could say how the CSB have facilitated the participation of civil society – having filled in the gap left by executive secretariat .

Viola: 

Adding suggestions – tasks and responsibilities to the bureau – there are not enough definitions  - Robert was mentioning changes and updating of lists – as far as secretariat was concerned we need further resources and support. 

Renata: 

Already made comment – we as bureau need to be revolving – who is sitting on the bureau to see in which way we give support to what is being done.

Very much in support of what is said by Rami, Janet, tracey and so on..

Magally:

I have particular issues on mandate of issues, I think it was good when Rami and Mosef spoke about different perspectives. It was very useful. And there are 3 things –

-	secretariat
-	civil society bureau
-	traditional role of ngls and civil society in the UN

And I have to say from a person experience that had a fellowship to go to wsis summit – it was impossible to communicate with people there of the bureau.

One thing that is important – role in the executive is that it has to have language capability – so how can we talk about secretariat of the bureau whose role we do not know what it is..

So if we do not know what the role and definitions and mandate – so how do we work with orgs like NGLS in UN who have a record of working with the UN process 

We need to talk a lot more about the mandate of the CSB/secretariat

Viola:

We did discuss the mandate of the bureau – how the bureau works – we already have docs

We deal with procedure 

Robert:

A few issues

-	Joseph comments on CSB – what has CSB done
-	Rami said – concrete steps 

Other things that has caused brief – one thing is to have the CSB bureau – and commitment to do things. 

He said of things he does and how roles and responsibilities – it is important for role and responsibilities to be defined

-	Mandate and responsibility of the bureau – and outreach done for people to ensure they are in agreement with such
-	He is shocked and surprised of creation of a secretariat – communications needs to open and transparent
-	We need to define who we are before we talk about structures 
-	Transparency – about reports for donors and bios of people who attend meetings and so forth.
-	Faccilitation 
-	Concrete recommendations 
-	Other points are in his notes:

Ben Jamaa:

Working groups – There are suggestions from the working groups – Ben has this in writing .

Francis:

There is a problem – the relationship between families and the thematic groups – such as the internet governance

He suggests there should be a focal point for the finance.

He think there is a need to enlargement of the families – such as the European family – we need to formally interact with the European union – so the need to have a formal family for Europe to interact with the European union.

Concerning the procedures between the groups – families and thematic working groups – as such CSB should have a rule – regulatory for dealing with problems between the groups and no in the groups.

So the issues of freedom of speech – it is a procedural issues and as such the CSB should write a statement for the protection of CSB and speakers. 

In conclusion, we should not spend soo much focus on representation – we are making competition with political parties and so forth – we should focus on ideas and idea that have legitimacy.

Joseph:

To take up what I began earlier – members of CSB must produce results – but more importantly it is that more people must attend the World summit. The world summit is not for elite.

As for the civil society secretariat – what is the problem I need to understand.

Mosef:

>From the executive secretariat – the idea of civil society actually came from the government bureau – as the need to community – it is vital to create a partnership – coming to what joseph said about the bureau – there is will to give – 

So to conclude: it is not intended to create a new structure – we are open to civil society experience of involvement of CONGO, ICV,NGLS and this collaboration we are able to collaborate on a number of things. 

So I would fully endorse the proposal made a Renata and allow the setting up the secretariat and so as to fill the gap left by the executive secretariat to carry on

Rami:

Picture – to be photographed,

Viola:

Robert:

Francis – about dialogue with the European union – there has been ongoing dialogue and is taking place now – there are mailing list already on this.

Second point – about/ a reflection from the Europeans and – there are two things – whatever the bureau does there is suspicion – for some people if they saw that it can be interpreted differently. 

So like the current structure – CONGO/NGLS/ICV

About the CSB set up – history that CSB was set up to liaise with govt, the CSB – no need to be under the executive secrariat – it needs to be independent 

We need to respond to issues rapidly to issues – and the current structure seems to be working – already a small group existing for responding urgently to issues.

Renata:

CSB issues has had frustrations – CONGO has limited capacity and has not be able to respond to all issues – even in issues of funding there is limited funding – nonetheless there is desire to do better ..and now recommendations that civil society has to do things themselves and not dependent on the executive.

Then the language, capacity and now the different processes taking place. 
Robert:

Titi:

On three levels – people will be asked – who mandated these organizations –how are they members of the bureau.

Second level – we still have answered major questions – what does the bureau do – procedures/admin stuff and in what way
.

The final level – good to hear from Markus Kumer – what is the relevance of Markus Kumer in the meeting. 

When questions come such as who is the bureau secretariat – meaning do we agreed that CONGO, NGLS, and ICV are now the secretariat ?

Viola: 

Christine:

Titi:

If we hear – new items we need time to reflect on new issues 
.

Viola:

We have a problem of time:

We need to determine questions, issues and 

Ben Jamaa:

Agree with last two speakers – what have we agreed, we have only had contracting propoisals– I think the only agreed issue is that we need to evolve?

What have we agreed – I think we need the minutes on proposals on made and then members of the caucuses can then send feedback. 

Tracey: 

We have identified where tricky issues are and we need to some facilitated sessions – to mark out issues – but it is a bit too late for now – so really we need to find another time to continue these discussions and come up solutions.

Izumi:

He thinks this is all okay – to have disagreements – it is not easy to receive solutions. I think it is a good idea to evaluate and come up with proposals – we need to come up idea.

About the Markus statement he thinks is also good he came so that we understand the process, maybe he took soo much time – but it is good.

Francis:

About Amir – a discussion must be made tomorrow 

About the meeting on financing – there is limited space for civil society  – CSB to really take the firm decision on participation. 

Viola: 

Last few things

How do we appoint or validate the orgs playing a role or facilitating this bureau ..as well as people like Robert being critisised for playing a role on certain things..?

Other things like Amir case 

Also about the case of NishiMoto – chair or taskforce on financing
.refuse to include civil society on the working group

About time – could we have a group working on solutions
need to come up with solutions on how we can move forward. 

Final comments: 

Agenda for next steps:

Robert: 

I think we need to be very constructive – we need to set our selves a schedule – there are ways and we can move forward. 

Derrick: 

About how we work, we are still doing the same things the old ways which is very frustrating 
 most of what we have done today could have been done in alternative ways so that we leave face to face meetings in other things.

We need to make use tools make use of tools – so cut down on time and make use of valuable resources. 

Christine: 

So far she can understand the issues raised by Titi and Robert – she has not be raising objectives because she is does not have alternatives. 

The thing that disappoints her is that the secretariat of the bureau is now outside the executive secretary. 

Viola: 

Last speakers and continue tomorrow morning. 

Renata: 

Nnenna:

The way you ask questions presents some answers 
.in terms of resolving issues we need to be tactical and be wise about how we go about decisions and how they are communicated to the caucuses.

There is a need for the working groups – if the people on working methods can come to Accra for the Africa region-working group.

Moustafa:

If tomorrow we can have document – about the main point about what we have decided about 
..

Viola: 

Viola says the minutes and notes will make easier to summarise issues and Robert add that the team making notes will also make this hopeful.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Minutes_CSB_Capetown.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 142848 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/Minutes_CSB_Capetown.doc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Notes from CSB-Cape Town Meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 31580 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/NotesfromCSB-CapeTownMeeting.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Part-2-Notes from CSB Cape Town Meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 14175 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/Part-2-NotesfromCSBCapeTownMeeting.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Part-2-revised-Notes from CSB Cape Town Meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 19470 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/Part-2-revised-NotesfromCSBCapeTownMeeting.obj
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Part-3-WSIS CSB Cape Town meeting
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 33376 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20041215/7e83b50b/Part-3-WSISCSBCapeTownmeeting.obj