Dear all, Paul and Bill,<div><br></div><div>I have no qualms whatsoever with any of the nominees that have been put foward and will not propose myself for obvious reasons ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>What I want to address here is I think there is a misunderstanding between Paul and Bill that must be clarified right away. </div>
<div><br></div><div>What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy.</div>
<div><br></div><div>This <b>clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, </b>as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. Could we ask the co-moderators to initiate such a process and maybe designate two or three people (with diverse perspectives) to rapidly prepare a first blurb (with main headings only as a starting point) ?</div>
<div><br></div><div>As for Paul's remarks, his Post Scriptum is actually simpler to understand than the analogy with someone's hand in somebody else's pocket (where is the hand here and whose pocket is it ?). In his PS, Paul wrote : "<i>There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is saying</i>". Here I vehemently agree (as Milton likes to say) : integrity of speech is in the substance of the message, not the degree of abruptness in the formulation. Since when has thinking strategically, identifying allies and polishing formulations been considered equivalent to caving in and submitting to the powers that be ? The IGC has demonstrated regularly in the past years its capacity to deliver strong messages in a constructive and articulated voice and there is no reason for it to become unable to do so in this instance. </div>
<div><br></div><div>By the way, let's be aware that there is not a simple dichotomy here with the good civil society completely in agreement on what is best for global citizens and the bad governments just wanting to kill the IGF. Reality is that there are strong supporters of the IGF among governments (and other actors) and divergent views (and legitimately so) within this very list on precise modalities for "improvement", let alone the fundamental legitimacy of specific forms of multi-stakeholder interaction (see the debate on multistakeholder<i><b>ism</b></i>). Lines of opposition cross constituencies more often than we seem to think. </div>
<div><br></div><div>The diversity of viewpoints has always been a strength of the IGC as in many respects it represents, in a microcosm, the diversity of positions of the IGF participants at large. This is why many of them are actually following this list as silent participants, because it informs their own positions and exposes them to arguments they do not hear in their respective silos.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Any consensus that the IGC can shape is therefore likely to be balanced and showing a good way forward (as it did in the past for the very creation of the IGF). Likewise, any clear description of various alternatives and the pros and cons of each (when there is no full agreement on the list) will positively inform the discussion. The IGF is constantly walking a fine line between too much informality and too much formality; between too much involvement of one category of actors and too little; between superficial consensus and destructive oppositions. Maintaining such delicate balances is key to its progress and to its demonstration that it is really useful. Absolute positions in one direction of the other risks moving us all away from the goal. </div>
<div><br></div><div>This has nothing to do with being negative or positive as a matter of principle (although I personally always believe there is possibility to formulate in a positive way even strong arguments), but about saying in a constructive manner what we collectively believe is right, in full appreciation of what is at stake. This is basically a matter of exercising full responsibility. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I hope this helps. </div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div>Bertrand</div><div><br></div><div> <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Paul Lehto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lehto.paul@gmail.com" target="_blank">lehto.paul@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Whenever one does not have a distinct term of office in which one<br>
essentially can't be removed (as with most elected representatives)<br>
these kinds of "be careful" and "be strategic" and "don't be negative"<br>
considerations always arise.<br>
<br>
This is the condition of every single civil society "stakeholder"<br>
granted some sort of voice in a process: They know full well that they<br>
can not say everything, can't very often be negative, and they feel<br>
they must be strategic in what they talk or complain about. It is<br>
thus that advocating for the truth is replaced by responding to the<br>
carrots and sticks of the powers that be, which is my interpretation<br>
of the class of statements this quote from below is in: "it would be<br>
<div>a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors<br>
who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based<br>
configuration."<br>
<br>
</div>Isn't it nearly always a bad idea to "directly take on" the powers<br>
that be from a certain self-preservation perspective?<br>
<br>
What if the powers that be are abusive? In that case, they will<br>
really not appreciate a "negative" approach and do need to be<br>
addressed most directly. To use an example by way of analogy using<br>
something everyone can understand:<br>
<br>
If someone puts their hand down somebody elses pocket, invading the<br>
security of their person as well as property, and keeps fishing around<br>
down there, is there any approach to take other than directly taking<br>
them on and firmly requesting or demanding the full removal of their<br>
hand from one's pocket?<br>
<br>
Only a slavish fear of imminent harm would counsel caution or lack of<br>
negativity in directly taking on such a person. Only a fool would<br>
compromise such that the hand only need come half way out of the<br>
pocket. Only the confused in this instance would get hung up on the<br>
demand "get your hand out of my pocket right now" as being "negative."<br>
<br>
I'm not saying now is definitely the time to be direct and negative.<br>
<br>
But, I am saying that the assessment of the necessity of being<br>
"negative" and "direct" has to be independent of the "threat" of IGF<br>
non-renewal and the like, and thus independent of conflicts of<br>
interest. Any who purport to give voice to people or to interests<br>
are misrepresenting either the nature and certainly the extent of<br>
their giving voice when they are being strategic.<br>
<br>
Without this disregard of the personal or organizational costs of<br>
speaking the truth, the decisions about what is said or not said<br>
ultimately lack integrity -- and this is intrinsically justified by a<br>
belief that one is under a degree of duress, such as IGF renewal.<br>
<br>
This fear can be backwards. I was essentially an elected official for<br>
several years, a governor of a bar association. I made a "no holds<br>
barred" speech, calling the situation "catastrophic" and naming names.<br>
The minutes reflect that I made "compelling" arguments on an issue<br>
not really heard before and an effort was set up to draft a permanent<br>
("stakeholder?") committee to forward a resolution to solve the<br>
problem. That was done, new voices were brought in to (in effect)<br>
study solutions to the problem I emphatically laid out. Today, it's<br>
been addressed.<br>
<br>
I learned from that experience and others that holding back can hurt<br>
somebody pretty badly if they have a good faith audience who might<br>
otherwise respond to a compelling call to justice.<br>
<br>
Approached the other way, whatever substantive points are<br>
"strategically" held back tend to prove that civil society does not<br>
really represent people first and foremost. Rather, it has first and<br>
foremost in its mind its own self-preservation and continuing access<br>
to the apparent halls of power. That's quite human, and it may be<br>
done sometimes for apparently noble motives like "continuing the great<br>
and important work we have." But still a conflict of interest that<br>
undermines civil society's claim to importance.<br>
<br>
Wisdom, in my opinion, comes in seeing that these excuses or<br>
considerations for not speaking truth to power are virtually always<br>
present in some significant degree, and thus there is never a good<br>
time to speak the uncensored truth, if one allows personal or<br>
organizational conflicts of interest to hold sway. The challenge,<br>
instead, is outlined in my P.S. below - to not hold back but to speak<br>
articulately, compellingly and (usually) diplomatically. These are<br>
the only true qualifications, and anyone can meet them at one or many<br>
times of their life, regardless of background or education, but we<br>
must know when to send the sober policy wonks, and the answer to that<br>
question is surely not "always."<br>
<br>
Paul Lehto, J.D.<br>
<br>
P.S. There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs<br>
to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is<br>
saying. I tried to above, as it would have been shorter and less<br>
diplomatic to say:<br>
<br>
"Don't be a sycophant to power, have some integrity and actually try<br>
to give voice to all of the voices you know in the halls of power<br>
where they aren't heard often enough, or ever. "Pulling punches" may<br>
or may not succeed at self-preservation, but it certainly constitutes<br>
a confllct of interest and it certainly destroys the claim that civil<br>
society is up to the task of representing anything other than a<br>
strategic slice of civil society."<br>
<br>
The main text above is closest to my true intent, and it is also more<br>
diplomatic (I trust).<br>
<br>
<br>
On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque <<a href="mailto:gpaque@gmail.com" target="_blank">gpaque@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. [...] You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below)<br>
<div><div></div><div>> Best, Ginger><br>
><br>
> Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be<br>
> renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in<br>
> intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS<br>
> interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to<br>
> what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad<br>
> idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are<br>
> pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the<br>
> case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive<br>
> manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for<br>
> "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be<br>
> somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even<br>
> coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as<br>
> well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions<br>
> (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these<br>
> parameters.<br>
><br></div></div></blockquote></div>-- <br>____________________<br>Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry<br>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</div>