Sv: [CS Bureau] This morning's CSB meeting - DRAFT minutes

[Ann-Kristin Håkansson]

Point 6.
I can accept this point if we change "the plenary this mornig COULD 
have...." as we did not discuss this and agreed that it was an option

Point 9.
We should also say"being criticised to respond, AS WELL AS PEOPLE WITH 
HR CONCERNS FROM COUNTRIES EXCEPT TUNIS AND CHINA"

Ann-Kristin

----Ursprungligt meddelande----
Från: wsis at iprolink.ch
Datum: Sep 23, 2005 4:31:05 PM
Till: bureau at wsis-cs.org
Kopia: wsis at ngocongo.org
Ärende: [CS Bureau] This morning's CSB meeting - DRAFT minutes

As agreed, please find below and attached the report on this morning's 
CSB
meeting.

Please send us your comments before we send it to the Plenary.

Best regards,

Philippe



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


Civil Society Agenda
Friday 23rd 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.

DRAFT Civil Society Bureau Minutes
Friday 23rd 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 guidelines on 
procedure.

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, though there are many people 
aware of
the need for output.

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, today. These 
will need to
be discussed on-line, and or in a specially convened Plenary meeting. 
This
decision should be taken in the Plenary meeting on Monday morning.

6.	It is noted that an option for the Plenary meeting this morning 
would 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.	Two other options are available for Plenary to consider as a way 
forward.

These are:

1.	To circulate the statement and request for a vote at the next 
Plenary meeting
on Monday. In this option Plenary would first need to decide if there 
is a will
to take a vote, then proceed on the basis of that result.

2.	To convene a special Plenary to vote on the statement. In this 
event Plenary
would need to take a decision on holding the special plenary and on 
the will to
vote.

The CSB prefers the option based on previous practice, to make the 
announced
statement  available for endorsement, and offers this as advice.

9.	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.
While this prerogative is certainly not questioned, it is 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 that have been attempted.