<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi,<DIV><BR><DIV><DIV>On 22 jul 2006, at 12.17, Parminder wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"> <O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"> <O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"> <DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="3" face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="font-size: 12.0pt">>in my understanding of the notion of intentionality, only people can have intentions. if an abstract entity like a caucus has an intention it is only because its >membership has one.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">I think, organizations have intentions as well, which is more than or different from the sum of (independent) intentions of its constituents. I think this is very basic to definition, theory etc of organizations. We can of course speak of organizations seeking to, having the intention, working towards etc etc without having to speak of its members having the intention etc….. In fact, often my own independent intentions may not be exactly the same as that of the organization that I may constitute, IGC, in this case.<BR></SPAN></FONT></P></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>True, but in the sense of a charter, we are agreeing on a statement that the members specifically intend.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"> <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">I saw the ‘membership’ clause in the draft closely, and I agreed with this clause as it stand, though I, and some others who have argued on this list, do have views about how groups/ organizations/ interest groups based stakeholder-ship (going beyond a strict construction implied in ‘membership’) of IGC should be emphasized. And it is emphasized in the mission of the present draft, and in some parts of the tasks. <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></P><P class="MsoNormal"><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy">And it also flows from the history of the caucus. For example, the webpage for the IGC list serve mentions that <O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></P> <PRE><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt"> This list is for a) public discussion of Internet governance issues, and b) coordination of the<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt">Internet Governance Caucus (IGC). <B><SPAN style="font-weight:bold">The IGC comprises individual and organizational civil society<O:P></O:P></SPAN></B></SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><B><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;font-weight:bold">actors (emphasis added) </SPAN></FONT></B>that came together in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to<O:P></O:P></PRE><PRE><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt">promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. </SPAN></FONT></PRE></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>yes, that is the historical page for the IGC as a WSIS CS committee. I have looked at that and avoided changing it until after the charter is approved.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="City" downloadurl="http://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="place" downloadurl="http://www.5iantlavalamp.com/"><O:SMARTTAGTYPE namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="PersonName"><DIV class="Section1"><PRE><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt"><O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><FONT size="2" face="Courier New"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></PRE><PRE><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy">However, I also understand that for many process related issues, some kind of strict definition of membership aspects is necessary. And that the membership portion of the draft charter deals with this issue. And that perhaps it will be too complicated to get into organizational memberships in this respect. And to that extent, and for that strict purpose of fixing some necessary processes, it may be necessary to describe “</SPAN></FONT><SPAN class="apple-style-span"><FONT face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-family:Arial">the members of the IGC are individuals, acting in personal capacity”.<O:P></O:P></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></PRE><PRE><SPAN class="apple-style-span"><FONT size="2" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Arial"><O:P> </O:P></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></PRE><PRE><FONT size="2" color="navy" face="Arial"><SPAN style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy">So the issue of speaking about membership in relation to fixing some important IGC processes, is not the same as laying out IGC’s wider scope, domain, general constitution, stakeholdership, representative-ness etc, which I understand it is the intention of all of us to be a inclusive of what can go in the name of civil society as possible. It is in this sense that I have problems with mentioning ‘membership’ in the mission statement. </SPAN></FONT></PRE></DIV></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></O:SMARTTAGTYPE></BLOCKQUOTE><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>I understand. And I realize that my objection may be more pedantic than political. so am willing to to go back to the previous usage, though for correctness sake, as far as i can tell from the various dictionary descriptions of usage i have consulted during this conversation, caucus, as committee, takes a plural form of the verb. So it would be:</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV> The caucus intend ....</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I still would like to hear other opinions.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>thanks</DIV><DIV>a.</DIV><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>