[CS Bureau] TR: CSB Cape town

[Adam Peake]

Dear Viola, Renata:

Thank you very much for organizing the meeting.  Viola in particular 
for the preparations: always hard to arrange people's travel, visas, 
accommodation, etc. And seems an amazing job was done with 
translation and note taking: could you describe how that worked, is 
it something we could duplicate during prepcoms and other meetings? 
(What would it cost :-)

Fully support suggestions to shrink the size of the bureau.  As well 
as those families that don't respond by December 31st, perhaps some 
of those that do could be encouraged to think about merging. Building 
around a core of regional groups might be effective?

I think the original proposal to create a CS bureau suggested 10 families:

1. Academia and education
2. The science and technology community
3. The media
4. The creators and active promoters of culture
5. Cities and local authorities
6. Trade Unions
7. Parliamentarians
8. NGOs including social groups such as: Youth, Women, Indigenous, 
Disabled, etc.
9. Social movements
10. Multi-stakeholders partnerships

Add regional families (+5)
 From the list cut "Parliamentarians", and make Gender, Youth and 
People with Disabilities families in their own right (+2).  Do we 
have enough multi-stakeholders and trade unionists to merit a family? 
For the rest, they could be rolled up into these, e.g. the family I 
have been associated with, think-tanks, might become part of the NGO 
family. Also wonder if there needs to be both NGOs and social 
movements (NGOs organizations with legal status; social movements, 
those without.)

14, 15, 16 or 17, still quite large. Then add various liaisons.

Couple of comments on the meeting summary.

The government bureau and WSIS secretariat have spoken highly of the 
CS bureau, so I think sensible to take these positives and try and 
build on them.  Try to build on Bureau's successes rather than knock 
it down.

Pressing tasks:  begin a dialogue with the task force on financing 
mechanisms to see how civil society can contribute and be better 
represented there.  I think the Friends of Chair group is also 
urgent, how can we contribute, CS seems very missing from this. Given 
Mr. Samassekou's comments about the importance of CS contributions to 
the Geneva phase documents, we can justifiably a claim that CS will 
make a significant contribution.

About the WGIG --and I am obviously bias/conflicted on this-- I think 
we are doing OK and would prefer the Bureau to work through the 
Caucus. Internet governance is a well established content issue, I am 
not sure what the Bureau could or should do.  In terms of process 
--at least process issues in our external relations-- the caucus has 
been successful so far. For example, I would not like confusion to 
creep in about who WGIG should contact, etc. When the caucus needs 
CSB's help we will ask (as we did during the summer...) It is the 
responsibility of a content group to work via Plenary and content and 
themes.

Thanks,

Adam