[governance] Clarifying misunderstandings - Re: A minimalist solution

[Meryem Marzouki]

Dear Ken

No problem at all with ACSIS making its own proposal wthout  
mentioning the IG caucus. After all, it's not because a message has  
been posted on this list that it's the "property" of the list. Many  
of us are cross-posting and looking from  comments from different  
groups. Other caucuses have made their own proposals, without  
mentioning IGC, why would ACSIS didn't ? Again, this is a _normal_  
process. The "branding" issue is normal, and apply to all caucuses  
and coalitions (thematic or regional), and CS in general. This is our  
way of showing that we are stakeholder in the process. The only  
problem would be to have the same proposal made by different caucus/ 
coalitions, showing the IGC and everyone how CS lacks coordination.
The only problem comes from the lack of coordination of the IGC - of  
which we all are responsible -, and of CS as awhole. I hope this may  
clarify things.

Best,
Meryem

Le 3 avr. 06 à 17:17, Ken Lohento a écrit :

> 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


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