[CS Bureau] thanks Francis

[Tracey Naughton]

Francis

Thanks for your on-going engagement and reporting on WSIS. It is  
frustrating to be so far away, but that is the way it is. It is  
heartening to know that trusted colleagues are carrying on while  
those of us without the resources to do so can still keep informed  
and incorporate your information in our work in other parts of the  
globe.

I want to reiterate that I believe the civil society space that was  
clearly defined in the minds of other stakeholders during the WSIS  
process was a positive outcome. I believe that it would have been  
better leveraged if we had have documented it and used our gains and  
contributions to advocate for continued CS presence in the context of  
all UN negotiations and in any global governance arena. Once this  
kind of space is gained it requires maintenance before it becomes an  
assumed part of the landscape.

For me the internal CS squabbles which plague most civil society  
processes, are a reflection of both healthy diversity and a general  
lack of experience in governance strategy, by many, but certainly not  
all CS members. To focus too much on this is like nailing a jellyfish  
to the wall - its almost impossible and just when you think you have  
got it, it slips away again. Another ever present factor is people  
who take advantage of gains in such processes to highlight their own  
contribution and this too is simply part of the elasticity of a  
diverse group. Sometimes factions spring up in response to avoid  
problematic people and focus on a campaign goal. Mostly these people,  
whether they are from the north African region or the north American  
vicinity, don't mean badly, and mostly they just make the process  
more complex. Sometimes they weaken the overall effect and sometimes  
they do damage. Whatever the extent or nature of their input, it has  
to be managed and is likely to remain present.

'Herding cats' was a term used along the way to describe the co- 
ordination of civil society. I reckon the CSB did a reasonable job of  
keeping CS in the process and ensuring the space for the wider body  
of civil society actors to make their views heard. I think we should  
have made more of the CSB instead of collectively undermining it, so  
that others to follow could have arrived in a space that we helped  
make and in turn pursue goals important to the time. You have clearly  
seen that the space can be kept alive. I admire your juggling skills  
in furthering CS participation and in keeping important issues in the  
dialogue. All power to you, Davina and any others still hanging in  
there.

As for whether or not the CSB is dead, should be killed or continues  
to exist, the fact is that for the non-CS actors, CS involvement  
remains because the CSB was a organised mechanism and as such was an  
accepted way to negotiate with a sector that can look 'too hard' from  
the vantage point of government and private sector. It's strategic  
logistics. CONGO is the focal point for CS in the UN system but it is  
impossible for one small organisation to maintain the intensity of  
engagement that can be achieved with a topic specific body to  
represent CS in each process. I say keep the space open while it  
serves to keep CS there and contactable.

warm regards

Tracey

Tracey Naughton
Communication for Development Consultant
Johannesburg cell:  (+27)0791814148
Melbourne mobile:  (+61) 0408253838
tracey at traceynaughton.com
gizmo: tracey_naughton






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/bureau/attachments/20061030/93642832/attachment.html