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 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></div><div><br>
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <<a 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 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 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 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 href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
><br>
> Translate this email: <a 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 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 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 href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a 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>