[CS Bureau] CS Bureau reform

[Dr. Francis MUGUET]

Dear Al
> Dear Francis
> (to friends in WSIS Asia list--Francis responded to my last post on this copied
> to our list. If you didnt get that one, it is below this response to him.)
Thanks for the transparency to have this dialogye being posted
also on the WSIS Asia list. This is very kind of you and much appreciated.
> 
> Thank you for taking time to respond to my personal comment.
> 
> I too would like to believe in WSIS being a process, and not merely an event.
> But the objective basis for the previous stage--i.e., the two Summits--are
> finished, and the focus of CS organizing has to shift to new (WSIS-created or
> not) arenas. We are in a new stage,
yes, we were in a new stage of the process

  and the contexts are very different.
not that much,  the liaison officer of the CSB : Renate / CONGO
is currently interfacing with the very same people as during
the WSIS.    Same faces, new ceremonies, that's all.
We do not have to be enslaved to govermental formalities,
we are not just a mirror, we do have our autonomy !

If there is no CSB to whom UNCTAD as well as
the Greek governments and IGF people are going to speak with
to set up the procedural issues to set up consultation
to form those new bodies ?
It does not make any practical and polical sense at all to leave 
governements and International Organization with nobody
to speak with.

More importantly, the WSIS Civil Society Bureau has been quoted as an 
example of how the Civil Society has been recognized within the context
of the UN reform.  To dissolve the CSB now would be a significant
step backward toward a better recognition of the Civil Society
with the whole UN system.

  And,
> whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that in much the way the
> other global developmental summits have concluded their core process,WSIS has
> also concluded its own core process.
Everything is important, the implementation and
follow-up are crucial otherwise the "core" would have been
,as Bush said of the UN, a place of "futile discussions".

> 
> I do see your point that someone has to continue to play the role the Bureau
> played. But it will have to be a new body which will draw on a new mandate
> appropriate to the new arrangements and contexts CS faces.
When and how for all practical purposes ?

> 
> I am pretty sure that I know the role and function of the CS Bureau within the
> WSIS architecture, probably better than most, having been involved with it since
> the beginning (PrepCom2 Geneva), and in fact being the one who drafted (with
> Viola Krebs) the first reference document about the Bureau itself. I have also
> of course been aware of all the criticism the Bureau has received in the course
> of the WSIS process--many uncalled for, or a mere result of lack of information;
> some however, legitimate.
Yes, and indeed the CSB modus operandi has improved a lot, towards
openness.

> 
> The whole set of issues that bedeviled CS organizations (including the Bureau
> itself) all throughout the WSIS process--questions of representation,
> legitimacy, appropriate role, and prior rights--has led me to think that these
> things should be reassessed and reimagined in a new context.
I would like to remember that no body from Civil Society other than the
CSB has got governmental recognition.
To reform and improve the CSB, this is fine witn me,
there is a need to remove unactive families, and possibly add new ones.
However to dissolve the CSB is to destroy the *only* body of
*any* recognition.  It is very bad tactics.
It is self-destruction.

> Any gate-keeping
> role at this point I believe must evolve out of a new consensus-building process
> unhampered by the baggage of the past,
  even if the baggage is usefull ?
> and with an eye towards the most
> effective and inclusive way to engage the future.
this line of thought does not lead to anything practical now, as we
are facing urgent challenges.

> 
> Do I think that CS should continue to organize itself and find spaces to engage
> the post-WSIS arrangements? Of course! Do I think that all of the current
> structures nurtured in WSIS should continue as is--I do not think so. Maybe
> thats where we differ. (I concur though with most of what Wolfgang assesses in
> terms of the structures of CS which may continue as before.)
I do not understand the perspective of Wolfgang,
------------
 >What we need is a leadership for the Plenary.
  Sounds like a Furher principle !

 > For practical reasons I would propose that we consider the 
 >re-confirmaiton of the "Geneva Troika" to take the lead and to 
 >coordinate follow up WSIS activities.
  now sounds like the soviets !
-----------
what is this Troika ?
What its legitimacy ?
It will not be recognized by any government.

> 
> I hope you do not think I am "abandoning ship" in terms of engaging meaningfully
> (or trying to) in any and all governance spaces--global, regional,
> national--which deal with making the so-called "information society" inclusive
> for all. Because I simply am not.
So why you do not continue the Asia/Pacific family ?
What is the harm being done while continuing ?

> Aside from being very interested in the
> discussions and engagement on the IGF and to a certain extent the DSF, my
> institution (FMA) and global association (APC) has long been involved in
> ICT/infocomms/internet policy and praxis for social justice, as with many many
> other local and international NGOs...it has been doing so long before WSIS, and
> it will continue to be long after WSIS is long forgotten I hope.
Be carefull that your move might be misinterpreted as endorsing
some organizations to take over the procedural issues involving
the setting up of the follow-up and implementation bodies.
The CSB has a legitimate procedural role in those issues, it
is why the CSB is needed more than ever.

It is my firm opinion that the Civil Society should organize events 
concerning the Follow-Up and implementation in cooperation with 
Governments and International Organizations in order to be fully 
recognized as valuable and respected partner in the Follow-Up process.
It is quite ironic that while some are making efforts in that
direction, others are de facto and involuntarily downgrading
the Civil Society status.

Let me remember you that no government or international organization has
suggested the CSB to dissolve afer the WSIS !!!


> To equate the view of the mandate of CSB "expiring" with abandonment is unfair
> to all who engage before, parallel to, and after WSIS. WSIS is not the be all
> and end all of CS engagement--if WSIS did indeed prove something, it was that
> our best intentions to participate in intergovernmental spaces can be thwarted
> by bureaucratic red tape, political horse-trading by governments, and
> authoritarian tactics by hosts.
I agree that the final status of Civil Society in the coordinating 
bodies of the Implementation & Follow-Up process
has been weakenned, but this is one more reason to continue to fight !

> 
> WE continue to look at other areas where CS's advocacies and work can be
> promoted--e.g., UNESCO Conviention on Cultural Diversity, ICANN, WIPO, WTO, and
> the World Social Forums; ASEAN and APEC on the regional level, and many
> engagements too many to list down in the national level. And for sure we will be
> involved in efforts to organize CS engagement in all these as well, to make it
> as participatory and inclusive as our principles demand.
Yes, if you want to do so in an efficient way, in order to solve 
procedural issues with some weight, the CSB is much needed.

Let me give a practical example with UNESCO.
I did post this story before on the plenary &
CSB lists but let talk about it again.
There was the UNESCO/Microsoft agreement.
I complained to UNESCO press office that the document
was not made public. No answer.
It is clearly a procedural issue.
Then I went to see Karklins
and a few key delegations ( one from Asia, by the way )
complaining about this lack of transparency.
A week or so after I received a message from Khan.
this is not the end of story however, as
bureaucratic resistance continued :
all is documented here :
http://www.wsis-pct.org/unesco-microsoft.html

In fact, procedural issues are of political consequences
in the UN sytem. It is not just about room schedules.

Lets me remind you also the WSIS Thematic event
in Korea that was not inclusive of the
Korean Civil Society. To whom the Korean Civil Society
went to complain ?.
I transmitted and read the complain of the Korean Civil Society
to Karklins during the GFCs.
Lets us hope that our Korean friends remember this episode,
and appreciate the value of keeping the WSIS Asia/Pacific
family in the WSIS process, when many procedural fights
are waiting before us.

Therefore, it is difficult to understand what the WSIS Asia/Pacific 
family  has to gain from doing hara-kiri and from the disappearance of 
the CSB. Please, and this is not easy to say,
since I do not wish to appear to issue any authoritarian style statement 
(as I am aware of, and I do respect the cultural diversity in Asia ),
it is very respectfully suggested that you could
envision to have an inclusive discussion that could lead you to
kindly reconsider your position.

Best regards

Francis


> 
> Best
> Al
> 
> P.S. Thank you for suggesting Izumi Aizu to play the role of focal point for
> Asia--he has done so before, and he is certainly qualified to do so in other
> organizational contexts that may evolve in the future. But that is for us Asians
> to decide.
> 
> This point further amplifies one of my points about representation. If the basis
> for representation will always be the capacity of someone--me,  Izumi, or
> whoever--to travel to the appropriate meetings, then the thesis of Michael
> Gurstein and others critical of the non-inclusiveness of WSIS will be proven
> correct.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dr. Francis MUGUET <muguet at wtis.org>
> To: Al Alegre <alalegre at fma.ph>
> Cc: Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org>; <bureau at wsis-cs.org>;
> wsis-asia <communication at wsisasia.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 2:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [CS Bureau] CS Bureau reform
> 
> 
> 
>>Dear Al et al.
>>
>>
>>>Hi Robert and all
>>>
>>>Speaking in a personal capacity, I consider the CS Bureau of WSIS to have
>>>dissolved when WSIS was concluded.
>>
>>There are two perspectives,
>>1/ the WSIS as a show, in my own opinion a
>>rather superficial one ( the show is over, lets pack our stuff ),
>>2/ the WSIS is a process,  this perspective is more responsible
>>in the sense that one fully knows that to get recommandations
>>adopted is one thing, to get them implemented is anoher
>>yet more difficult task.
>>
>>Another point is that the WSIS is an unfinished business
>>on issues of substance :
>>1/ the governance is still a matter of hot debate, the only thing
>>that has been agreed is that we must talk about it further.!!!
>>2/ no internationnal governmental financial mechanism to bridge the
>>digital divide has been proposed, there are a few alternative
>>financial mechanism that have been proposed that needs to
>>be either reinforced or discussed.
>>
>>Concerning implementation, the fight to get the WSIS
>>recommendations to be even quoted and implemented as such
>>( and not as a vague reminder ) is going to very tough,
>>as I had the experience with UNESCO during its last
>>33rd conference.
>>
>>Therefore it quite clear that the
>>  WSIS process is not concluded, the hard part is only beginning.
>>
>>The WSIS has determined
>>several implementation and follow-up mechanims that still needs to
>>be organized. There are a lot of procedural issues that are
>>going to be negotiated between the Civil Society and
>>the executive secretariats of the various of the various
>>follow-up bodies.
>>
>>If there is no more Civil Society Interlocutor to interact with,
>>then the interest of the Civil Society will be not adequately
>>and inclusively defended.  If we do not stay, we are
>>abandonning our post, betraying our mission.
>>
>>
>>  (I don't know if this parallels the
>>
>>>Intergovernmental Bureau). This is simply due to the fact that WSIS is
>>>concluded, and the basis for organizing ourselves has moved on to a new
> 
> phase...
> 
>>>Am not sure now
>>
>>  If you are not so sure of anything and not so well informed, then
>>  it would be more prudent to adopt a softer language than "I consider".
>>  The last meeting in Geneva BRIEFING FOR NGOS ON THE OUTCOME OF THE WSIS
>>7 December 2005 15:00-18:00  was well attended.
>>  Utsumi and Karklins were present, and there were enlightenning
>>discussions. While,  I am sorry that logistics prevented many people
>>to attend, it clearly demonstrated that the WSIS process was alive.
>>In fact, we recorded on video all this event, along with special
>>interviews of Utsumi and Kanrlins towards the goal
>>
>>
>>
>>>what the CS Plenary has formally decided in this regard, but I
>>>suspect that the opportunity to formalize any decision on this has passed.
>>
>>I believe that the general mood was the Civil Society must continue
>>within its current structure its advocacy towards an efficient
>>implementation and follow-up.
>>
>>So far I know no other than your family has decided to dissolve
>>( or put in stand by mode ). There is no consensus on dissolving.
>>
>>
>>>We are in a new context, and Civil Society was I recall in the midst of
>>>rethinking all its structures and mechanisms.
>>>Even the Internet Governance Caucus, which has the most reason to continue
> 
> its
> 
>>>work in the context of the IGF discussions, is also rethinking its role,
> 
> nature,
> 
>>>and function.
>>
>>There has been many diverse opinions in this Internet Governance Caucus
>>In fact, a new Internet Governance group
>>has been recently created :
>>  Multi-stakeholder Modalities Working Group  ( created 14 Dec 2005 ).
>>So people are continuing to be involved.
>>
>>
>>>It would have been ideal to have had a concluding Final Assessment of the
> 
> Bureau
> 
>>>(and of other structures), but logistical realities may prevent it.
>>
>>Aizu has represented many times the Asia region at the CSB, and
>>he is present to many internet related meeting.
>>May be, it would be fine if you could find
>>some arrangement with him so that
>>he could become the focal point of the Asia region if logistical
>>realities prevent you to personnally attend.
>>ITU has been somewhat generous to pay travel expenses to
>>CSB members. May be, it might continue to do so
>>with follow-up events. May be ECOSOC might follow the
>>same approach. I am aware that people from countries not being
>>categorized as LDC has not been unelegible from travel grants by ITU.
>>I would stress that the CSB as a whole carry a much more signicant
>>clout to raise money from governments, and it was quite effective.
>>Considering foundations, this ressource has been left unexplored
>>for various reasons that has been alrready discussed in
>>the Cape Town meeting ( another example of CSB financing by the
>>way, thanks to ICV, by Francophonie & ITU ).
>>Thanks to various efforts, two major
>>foundations have become accredited in the last
>>stage of the Tunis phase.
>>They might be of assistance in the continuing WSIS process.
>>
>>
>>>I urge those organizations which continue to have the political access and
> 
> the
> 
>>>economic resources, as well as the institutional interest to do so (e.g.,
>>>CONGO?) to help organize platforms for discussion and consensus-building
> 
> among
> 
>>>all civil society organizations in the most inclusive manner possible.
>>>
>>
>>CONGO has played the role of the executive secretariat of the CSB in a
>>very effective manner interacting with the WSIS executive secretariat.
>>To dissolve the CSB would severely diminish the impact of CONGO
>>with governements, and besides CONGO would have no longer a clear
>>mandate to do so.
>>
>>
>>>As for the Asia Pacific Caucus, we will continue to maintain our mailing
> 
> list,
> 
>>>and until such time that a similar strategic assessment and planning process
> 
> can
> 
>>>be held, it will function now mainly as a space for information and
>>>communication exchange. Whether this will evolve into something else (or be
>>>replaced by new coalitions to respond to the changed context), we will still
>>>have to see.
>>
>>Yes, it would be advisable that you keep your advocacy network ready
>>for the future struggles that may come, and there will be many.
>>
>>Do not give up the ship !
>>
>>Best regards
>>
>>Francis
>>
>>
>>>Thanks
>>>
>>>Al Alegre
>>>previous focal point of the previous Asia Pacific Caucus in the previous
> 
> WSIS
> 
>>>:-)
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org>
>>>To: CS Plenary <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
>>>Cc: bureau wsis <bureau at wsis-cs.org>
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 1:51 AM
>>>Subject: [CS Bureau] CS Bureau reform
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'd like to repeat my earlier call for a re-evaluation of the
>>>>structure and make-up of the WSIS Civil Society Bureau.
>>>>
>>>>The roles, responsibilities and expectations of the members of the
>>>>CSB members has not been sufficiently defined (anywhere), and as such
>>>>needs to be  re-examined before it engages in any new processes or
>>>>consultations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>regards,
>>>>
>>>>Robert
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>>>>Managing Director, Privaterra
>>>>Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374
>>>>
>>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 

------------------------------------------------------
Francis F. MUGUET  Ph.D
World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)
muguet at wtis.org

UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web

Director
Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
Knowledge Networks and Information Society
ENSTA
32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82
muguet at ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
Associate Publisher
http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
muguet at mdpi.org       muguet at mdpi.net

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