[governance] A minimalist solution

[Ken Lohento]

Dear Meryem

I think, first, that there are some misunderstandings, second that it's
going as if the African CS is the responsible or the only "group" that did
not mention the IG caucus in its contributions. Sorry if I didn't well
understand you.  I'm saying this because you wonder "wouldn't it be
preferable to leave these proposals made by African CS ?".

There can not be a competition between the African CS or ACSIS (which sent
my proposals and Mawaki's  - if we can speak in that way) and the IG Caucus
because ACSIS is not a WSIS caucus. So there is no problem of branding - you
said "Other caucuses also want their "brand" appearing in the process".
ACSIS is a network like any other civil society entity having "members" in
the IG Caucus (like the other entities that didn't mention the IG Caucus
name in submitting their proposal - this was not intentional I think). ACSIS
is formally different from the African Civil Society WSIS Caucus but I
understand you may thought it was a WSIS caucus. Moreover, there are
proposals discussed here  and written in the format adopted here that have
been submitted by other formal WSIS caucuses or groups. Maybe there is a
problem of branding there but I don't think people behave to compete with
the IG Caucus. I think things were not clear and we didn't well coordinate
this, and maybe because we had a deadline, people thought the main issue was
that the proposals are sent. And I think it possible we should correct and
at least add that the contributions have been used according to the IGC
format, to give tribute to the Caucus.

Regards

Ken L


-----Message d'origine-----
De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]De la part de Meryem Marzouki
Envoyé : lundi 3 avril 2006 14:20
À : governance at lists.cpsr.org
Objet : Re: [governance] A minimalist solution

Bill,

First, let me make some of my points clearer:

- I never meant that nominating people to the MAG (and the process to
reach this goal) was bad or should be stopped. Just expressing
disappointment on the submission process, in comparison.

- I don't necessarily want to drop proposal by any caucus members.
Just pointing out how strange it could now appear that the IGC  makes
a proposal already made by another caucus. Other caucuses also want
their "brand" appearing in the process, that's normal. An what does
that mean to have same submissions from different caucuses (this is
different from a _common_ submission) ? What it means with regards to
CS (lack of) coordination? For this reason, wouldn't it be preferable
to leave these proposals made by African CS ?

Now on your comment and suggestions:

- I understand your comment on the letter I proposed. In any case, it
would have had a meaning only if accompanyied by a set of priority on
all submissions. Let's forget about this

- Your minimal suggestion... is really minimal! Why not including
something along your previous suggestion, at least:

> Another simple approach would be to include in each proposal a
> standardized
> caption like "Theme Proposal for the IGF Submitted by the IGC" and a
> disclaimer paragraph so that readers see this came from the caucus
> space but
> there's no prioritization or specific endorsement of each, why
> they're all
> in Bertrand's standardized format, etc...It wouldn't be hard to
> write this,
> but there's no point if there's not much interest here in
> preserving the
> brand etc...

Meryem


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance