[CS Bureau] Re: clarification of regions in cs bureau

[Robert Guerra]

Amali & Ralf:

thanks for the message - let's take your points one at a time...

- transparency, families & regional groups -

I had a good meeting with Richard Jordan in new York city today. I 
briefed him on the WSIS meeting in Tunisia, and he briefed me on 
structures which have been setup at previous UN summits and the UN in 
general to facilitate CS involvement and actitive contribution.

he'll be sending me background documents related to "agenda 21" and the 
Johannesburg Summit (WSSD) where the concept of families and regional 
groups were also developed. From what I gather what was developed at 
WSIS by CS wasn't new, but instead built on past experience. What seems 
to be new, is that it's now called a bureau, but in practice it's been 
there in the past.

as i mentioned, i'll post the documents in a attempt to create a set of 
references which people can turn to in order to understand what's been 
set up, how it works - create transparency, which is what i too agree 
needs to happen.

in regards to the mailing list...the CS bureau list is being moved from 
the @geneva2003.org domain to  @wsis-cs.org. This is being done, to 
increase transparency - as the @wsis-cs domain is controlled by CS 
itself, and it's archives are open for all to see in read. By doing this 
simple switch, we are taking an important step of being more open

thus, being able to post is restricted to members - observing, is open 
to all ...just see for yourself..
<http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/bureau/>


I'll say this Amali, and it's a personal view - I have tried my best, 
and at considerable personal expense may i add -  to work hard to bring 
the issues of perform the communications , outreach and liaison function 
CS bureau members need to, have to perform. other CSB members have not 
done this at all, and they need to. They should be hearing the calls for 
openness, transparency and accountability - and actually take their role 
seriously.


I have been a long term privacy advocate and believe I'm one of the most 
open and transparent member of CSb bureau. Your references to privacy, 
freedom of information are being directed to others, right? as  it's 
strange if you are directing them to me - as you well know i'm a very 
active member in the privacy advocacy community.






--On Saturday, March 13, 2004 9:55 PM +0100 Ralf Bendrath 
<bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

> - why it was so easy to invent new "families" at prepcom2 when the
> bureau was set up, while it should be a problem to welcome the fact
> that the European and North American caucuses are really working and
> should each have a seat in the bureau;


see above - new "families" weren't in fact invented, but built on 
existing precedence from previous UN processes and UN/CS activities. 
i'll be posting several references on my Wiki ...will let you know when 
they are online.

> - why the bureau should not allow observers on the list, as the
> physical meetings are also open (at least the plenary never decided the
> opposite).


well, i would disagree.  since i've been active on the bureau (prepcom3) 
meetings have been open to all to attend. Further more, non bureau 
members ...observers, have had the chance to speak and reply...


in terms of mailing lists - well, the previous bureau list was closed to 
outsiders. This was more than anything due to the fact that the CS civil 
society secretariat ran the list. The list has been moved to 
@wsis-cs.org, and as such we have control over the archive, and have 
made it open for people to read.

Wrapping up, i'll say it's important that despite it's issues the CSB 
has been able to perform a very useful and productive role. Yes, it's 
got it's problems - which are being addresses slowly. let's work 
collaboratively to come up not just with criticisms (which is easy), but 
with  concrete recommendations which can serve to help us all.


regards

Robert