[CS Bureau] Re: [Working Methods] CS Plenary Draft Charter - respond by Sunday 25. Sept

[Avri Doria]

There are several point with which I disagree i this formulation.  I  
mentioned them in my previous note and as the current document  
reflects very little change over the previous note will reiterate them.

1. Any plenary should be able to make a decision as long as the text  
of the decision is made available at the C&T meeting the night before.

I would be amenable to adding a condition to that in that the C&T  
should agree by straw ballot to bring the issue to a vote in the  
plenary.

2. I do not agree that the CSB should have any right in deciding what  
can come to a vote.  they are a liaison body and not the Board of  
Directors of the plenary.  I certainly do not think it reasonable to  
give any power to a body which does not yet have an approved charter,  
and among others, will protest any attempt to make the CSB a  
controlling or decision making body.  Personally I still do not see  
where they derive any legitimacy.

3. I believe that one chair should be voted in and sit permanently  
for the duration of the meeting, unless removed by a vote.  this is  
continuity sake.  I think the other chair should rotate from among  
the caucuses.  I do not think the CSB has any role in chairing the  
plenary as they should, as a liaison group, really be a subcommittee  
of the plenary and be answerable to it.

a.

On 23 sep 2005, at 19.24, Ramin.Kaweh at unctad.org wrote:

> = URGENT =
> PLEASE RESPOND BY Sunday 25 Sept !!
>
> ====================================================================== 
> =
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please see attached the latest DRAFT Civil Society Plenary Charter  
> (CSP).
> Note it is not the final recommendation of the WGWM, and your input  
> and
> suggestions, before sending it to the virtual as well as physical CS
> Plenary, asap, by Monday.
>
> THANKS to all those members who actively contributed during the  
> past few
> days, during the meetings and virtually !
>
> Ramin & Rik
>
> ====================================================================== 
> =
>
> version 23. 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 a 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/organs/ 
> working
> groups 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
> [participating / attending?] CSOs.
> ?     The role of the CSB 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:
>
> Option 1)* open nomination process during CS Plenary (taking into  
> account
> regional, gender and linguistic balance).
> Option 2) rotation among regional caucuses
>       Option 3) rotation among CSB members
>
> [* Recommendation: Option 1) 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 CSP 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, to consolidate and to synthesise the content  
> of the
> discussion/debate
> ?     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:
>
>       Option 1)* rotation among CSB members, subject to the  
> approval of the
> CSP
>       Option 2) rotation among regional caucuses
> Option 3) open nomination process during CS Plenary (taking into  
> account
> regional, gender and linguistic balance).
>
> [*Recommendation: Option 1. The CSB should have a prepared 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. In this case the CSB ought to meet  
> immediately, in
> order to assess the appropriate conditions of such an extra-ordinary
> meeting and to make the necessary arrangements. The decision to  
> convene
> must be confirmed by 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 in the Plenary by a show of  
> hands, to
> assess the general feeling regarding a specific question/issue.
>
> ?     An extra-ordinary decision-making session ought to be  
> announced at
> least 24 hours in advance, including the time and the space of the  
> meeting
> and in emergency/crises situations at least three hours in advance.
>
> ?     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:
>
> ?     The quorum must be checked and validated by the two Chairs as  
> a first
> point of order.
>
> ?     A quorum account of half of the accredited and registered  
> number of
> the CS entities present in the event; and confirmation of the  
> quorum is
> made on a non-objection basis.
>
>
> 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 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 third (2/3) majority, there can be a  
> 2. or
> 3. round of votes.
>
> ?     If there still no two third (2/3) majority after the 3.  
> round, then a
> simply majority (50%) is adopted as the final decision.
>
>
> <Draft - CS Plenary 230905.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> Workingmethods mailing list
> Workingmethods at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/workingmethods
>