For Civil Society, the last stage of decision-making process that the global virtual teams (GVTs) are involved within the WSIS is called solution. Adler (1997) and Kingdon (1995) called this stage choice. In Figure 10.1, the activities were concentrated in months such as July (n = 18), November (n = 34), and December (n = 28). These three months had 67% of solutions generated, a total of 80, and signify fruitful and successful efforts in arriving at a decision, as well as receiving responses about the solution in the form of alternative solutions. In particular, the Civil Society participants during this period were working toward nominating speakers for the summit and finalizing the language for the documents, decisions that all required endorsements, and consensus.
Once most of the Civil Society participants came forward to endorse a draft document, a consensual decision could be reached about the language of the document. There were several levels of consensus building. On the one hand, Civil Society participants totally agreed with the language of the document and thus enthusiastically endorsed the document:
Figure 10.1 Solution activities in WSIS Geneva.
a. Thanks everyone who supported construction of this document. It is constructive, positive and diplomatic but clear! _* endorses it! Good luck in Paris!
b. Please include the endorsement of _ Venezuela. Thanks.
On the other hand, some people sent an endorsement with reservations:
a. Dear Benjamin,
I can endorse the final version (still with some reservations) concerning the ICT Governance para: -() on behalf of the following institutions:
■ Global Society Dialogue
■ Global Contract Foundation
■ International Association for Media and Communication Research
I am accredited under “_”. That is, when you collect primarily “registered” observers, you can add also “_”
Best wishes, thanks and admiration for the work and see you Tuesday.
Wutz
At other times, people could not endorse a document because they disagreed so strongly with the language:
a. All, Participants agreed to remove the last paragraph of the Governance section. The latest document is attached, without endorsements.
b. Dear Sandra and Benjamin, cannot endorse the document entitled “Civil Society Priorities Document” even under its last issue (07.12.03) for several obvious presentation and content reasons. It’s a pity for that good and intensive job done (mainly by yourself and Sandra I suppose), which I recognize and therefore thank both of you. Nevertheless, I’m sure we could reach an agreement if our main contribution is taken in account for a further final issue of that kind of document. Unfortunately neither of you will attend the Paris Meeting, and as for me, I can’t be present at the first day. But I’ll continue as usually my job in the CS CT working group during the three days left in order to re-integrate into the Action Plan these goals _ considers as its main ones, namely for bridging the N/S communication divide.
This final stage was the most challenging because consensus did not often mean unanimous decisions. In fact, the participants debated this issue in the listserv that revealed that there was a misconception among them on the meaning of consensus. As one of the participants clearly stated,
First, just to say that consensus is not synonymous with unanimity: it means that in the spirit of achieving a common position, there are no overriding objections. However, concerning your point, it has been clear from the outset that documents produced by the Content and Themes group express the consensus of those who sign them and not an overall consensus of Civil Society organizations attending the WSIS.
In other situations, Civil Society participants failed to achieve a solution because the problem was beyond the participants’ control or capacity to solve (for example, a problem with infrastructure). These kinds of problems had to be taken up by a higher authority, for example, the bureau or secretariat.
Finally, only in rare instances, the solution was achieved without going through the typical stages because some of participants voluntarily and unilaterally created a solution to the problem:
Dear Friends,
As you know the WSIS intersessional is only days away, from July 15–18 at UNESCO headquarters in Paris, France.
This communication is to inform you that Timothy Rhodes and Rince Plum will be working with the Conference of NGOs in Consultative Status with _ (CONGO) during the intersessional meeting in Paris to report and analyze the negotiations as they are happening. News, reports, and links to relevant Civil Society documents will be provided at: http://www.prepcom.net/wsis. (This site will go live late tomorrow, Tuesday, July 8, if you want a preview.)
We know that many groups are not able to send representatives to the intersessional meeting. We are committed to providing you as much information and news as possible on how the negotiations are proceeding, as well as providing a website where your views, proposals and papers can be shared. Please send any relevant documents to us at [email protected] or [email protected] and we will see that they are uploaded to the site. During the intersessional, Rince Plum can also be reached at his French mobile number: +36-1254-56-7342.
If you are planning on being at the Intersessional and can volunteer to take notes for a particular session, that would be very appreciated, particularly if you can write in French or Spanish.
So be sure and bookmark www.prepcom.net/wsis and check back every day!
In Peace,
Timothy Rhodes Rince Plum
[email protected] [email protected]
The next section provides analytical descriptions of the decision-making processes through verbatim examples from the archival email messages.
In this stage of the decision-making process, the findings showed that Civil Society participants had contradicting strategies for reaching consensus, finding solutions, and presenting their final decisions. High-context participants presented their decisions in a courteous and appreciative manner.
They normally began their email with a friendly or formal acknowledgment. Then, in the first paragraph, it was a common practice for them to first provide the context in which the decisions were made, followed by an expression of gratitude. In the subsequent paragraph(s), the decision was presented and followed by an apology. This strategy is common in group decision making. As an example, the following email from Sandra Burkasa used a collective voice when presenting the final decision and acknowledged and thanked the collective efforts in compiling the document.
Friends,
Under the most impossible conditions and with very little time for consultation we have sent the following letter and adjoined compilation text (English only, as you can imagine) to Mr. Sukanessi. Thanks to all who made input.
Those comments received today could only be included if they were short and simple and not contradictory with other proposals. I am sorry there wasn’t time to process it all. We can continue work on this for the November meeting.
Sandra Burkasa
Quite the opposite tone is taken by low-context participants who commonly used direct and precise statements to inform other participants of the decisions made—for instance, Wutz’s endorsement, “Here I fully agree. This is a “friendly amendment” and “I would fully endorse the references…”, or the announcement from Venda Busara:
Hi Victor,
I have just received a notification that there is not room available for the LAC caucus from 8–9 am. They are proposing us to have a room from 9 to 10. Please, reply to the message I have sent to the LAC caucus members who will be attending the PrepCom3 to decide collectively what to do.
Thanks!
Venda
Low-context participants would directly state their decision first, and then provide any remaining suggestions but only if the suggestions would not change their decision. In Sandra’s email quoted earlier in this section, she discusses the process that they went through in arriving at the final document, whereas Rolf (as follows) is concerned with presenting the final product itself. Note the different communication styles and tone. Rolf’s intention was to explicitly announce that the document was ready and that the participants could read it.
Hi all,
The Civil Society comments to the non-paper and the accompanying letter from Sandra are now online at http://www.worldsummit2003.org. There you also find a direct link to the non-paper and a new article on the process that has been going on in Geneva since PrepCom3.
Direct link to the comments for you references: <http://www.worldsummit2003.de/download_en/comments-on-nonpaper-30-10-2003-final.rtf>
Best, Rolf
Both Venda and Rolf made a decision that is based on self-interest and took action when it was appropriate without further consultation from the group. The findings showed that, in many cases, this approach or strategy was much more effective when there was a prominent leadership role that is played by a specific individual. For example, there was a discussion on the problems of infrastructure such as wireless connections, logistics, and Internet services. Renee immediately reacted to the problems that people faced by posting a brief and meaningful email that said, “I will further negotiate tomorrow morning.” She then promptly followed up with a message that outlined a solution:
Dear Sandra and all,
After some discussion and negotiations, the situation for meeting and work rooms is as follows:
One large room (9) for CS next to the Conference rooms, smaller rooms (14) (15) (16) in the adjacent building for CSB and other meetings and (A 12, seating 12–15) for the drafting persons or CTGroup.
Internet Cafe with 10–15 connected computers, will also be available.
Renee
In fact, an analysis of the distribution of Renee’s participation across the stages of the decision-making process showed that she contributed more in the proposal-making and solution stage, rather than the problem identification stage.
Another example is Raymond’s solution to the accreditation issue for the Civil Society organizations. He provided detailed and clear instructions, and his communication style was direct. He also provided details on where he got the information so that his information was substantiated and could be independently verified by others if they chose to do so.
Hi,
Raymond Jacob here, in Minneapolis for two weeks.
In checking on accreditation for another organization, I went to the www.itu.int site and clicked on the red “accreditatin” word on the right.
A page appears in the center of which are two lines, the second of which says “list of entitites that have requested accreditation.”
Click on that and there is a list of almost 2000 organizations. I went to our organization, Intl. Council for Caring Communities, clicked on it to see our web site, and came up with Indo-Canadian Chamber of Commerce, another “ICCC” as is our organization.
I suggest that you all check if the web site that is associated with your organization really is yours! Raymond J.
In conclusion, the way team members negotiate a decision to reach a solution is all dependent on the culturally laden values as rooted in the team members’ communicative behaviors. Apparently, the high-context members seemed to have a more courteous manner of presenting their decisions as they took time to present their solutions. For instance, members would provide subtle statements in the opening line of their communications, afterwards, leading members to their final decisions. On the other hand, the low-context members prefer to state their decisions clearly and quickly without delay, and they state it in a straightforward fashion by being transparent about their feelings and thoughts about such a solution. These two strategies of reaching to a solution need to be well recognized by GVT leaders and members because such contradictory approaches can create miscommunication, misinterpretations, frustrations, and conflicts if members do not handle such challenges with care and tact.
Adler, N.J. 1997. International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior, 3rd ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Kingdon, J.W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman.
* In order to protect confidentiality, the names of the organizations were stripped off from the message even though data were taken from the public archive.