<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an
interesting and important discussion for the IGC and our
communications. I think we should consider this carefully.<br>
<br>
The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely
opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition
with a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility
to help the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS.<br>
<br>
However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this
moment, we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such,
will not (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the
IGC, and so the presentations must necessarily be very carefully
prepared.<br>
<br>
May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as
suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are
in favor?<br>
<br>
Thanks to everyone,<br>
Best, Ginger<br>
</font><br>
On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTi=JLTM1ecFEJN_+ks2J3AodoZL-gEaOdst-1p1p@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all,<br>
<br>
I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my
understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant
attention of friends here.<br>
<br>
However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most
IGF open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it
precisely allowed to iron out potential differences and find
consensus. Why would it not be possible and useful for the IGF
itself ?<br>
<br>
The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed
- legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among
prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself
and the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the
selection of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one
vision versus another but an opportunity to identify elements of
consensus and possible alternative options to nurture the debate.
<br>
<br>
Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and
elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity
to have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that
we have not conducted so far in a structured manner. <br>
<br>
In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to
reformulate the proposal as follows :<br>
<br>
1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger
and Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin
america and asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches
(Jeremy does not have a reputation of being particularly tender
with the IGF :-)<br>
<br>
2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was
maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them
identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations
and the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is
close to Mawaki's idea of "talking points"<br>
<br>
As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline
and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next
milestones during the end of the year.<br>
<br>
Hope this helps.<br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki
Chango <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kichango@gmail.com" target="_blank">kichango@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;">
I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly
calls<br>
for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF
rules &<br>
procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven
practice) in<br>
the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember
(and<br>
frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy).<br>
<br>
I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far<br>
accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand
that this<br>
is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try
to<br>
reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community
while<br>
emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there
are any.<br>
I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a
couple of<br>
talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda)
but<br>
really not a collective elaboration of a full speech.<br>
<br>
Just my opinion.<br>
<br>
Mawaki<br>
<div>
<div><br>
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org"
target="_blank">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com" target="_blank">bdelachapelle@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
><br>
> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who
speaks, the message is<br>
> the most important and it has : a) to fully take into
account the issues<br>
> that are being discussed (and will be in other fora
like the UN GA and the<br>
> CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that
if the IGC proposes a<br>
> name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to
the speaker to draft<br>
> entirely on its own but should reflect the various
sensitivities present in<br>
> the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and
practice) of<br>
> democracy.<br>
><br>
> I agree up until now, but...<br>
><br>
> This clearly calls for draft speeches to be
elaborated on the list, as has<br>
> successfully been done in the past, with sufficient
opportunities for people<br>
> to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of
viewpoints.<br>
><br>
> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we
have done as you<br>
> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with
opening and closing<br>
> civil society statements, which have not been treated
as IGC statements and<br>
> have been left to the reasonable discretion of those
nominated.<br>
> Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the
understanding they will<br>
> not depart too radically from our general views.<br>
> Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not
think it is, as your<br>
> post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will
consult Ginger for her<br>
> views and also invite others to comment.<br>
> I would reply at more length, but just became a new
father again some hours<br>
> ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-)<br>
</div>
</div>
>
____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
><br>
> For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org" target="_blank">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
target="_blank">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"
target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"
target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy
for the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry
of Foreign and European Affairs<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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>