<!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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font size="+1"><font face="Nimbus Roman No9 L">I like this approach.
Parminder </font></font><br>
<br>
On Tuesday 24 August 2010 01:54 PM, 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>