[governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

[Parminder]

> Part of why I bothered to put time into this I really didn't

> have was

> because of this message, sent by you on Oct. 23, responding

> to Parminder's

> questions:

 

Adam's latest email greatly surprised me as well on this count....

 

> > But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a

> procedural point --

> > we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful

> process to agree

> > a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly

> the kind

> > of thing the re-chartering was to avoid?

> 

 

I did not understand this point at all... How is chartering to avoid last
minute drafts... I in fact may rather think that it can enable some last
minute processes. Milton also have lamented such 'last minute efforts' which
he thinks are doomed to failure. But I think purposeful advocacy spaces are
not like research or academic activities. It is very often opportunistic,
and a lot of such last minute kind of activities are involved. If countries
can work our internationally agreed and often binding texts in the last
confused hours - as we saw at WSIS, so can the CS. And if WSIS isnt a great
example of useful outputs, I am sure similar last minute activities must lie
behind the more useful policy documents - on subjects like human rights,
MDGs, climate change and such. 

 

With the failure of a simple exercise when we have tried to post points
which all come from IGF mandate related texts, which have been often agreed
on in the IGC during the WSIS, into an opportunistic space, we need to
review how effective are we as an advocacy group. 

 

And often I am not able to understand if differences on procedures really
hide far-reaching differences on substantive points. We need to discuss
substantive views more seriously - without of course aspiring for anything
like homogeneity.  For it is futile to try to get some consensus on what we
think is the broad ambit of the mandate of the IGC in terms of its
effectiveness in global IG related public policy arena when Jeanette still
insists on comparing IGF with Giganet (in her email to Bill) - when the
whole point of the present exercise was to see that it is not reduced to a
conference - and McTim just refuses to see a public policy related role of
IGC and sees only a capacity building function for it.

 

> Yes it is, but at the time people were saying we need a

> statement, shouldn't

> waste the opportunity, etc. 

 

I think we needed it. We can now lament it after the event.

 

 >Whatever, let's move on.

 

Yes, time for it :)

 

Parminder 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: William Drake [mailto:drake at hei.unige.ch]

> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:13 AM

> To: Governance; Peake, Adam

> Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus Statement: another proposal

> 

> Hi Adam,

> 

> > From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>

> 

> > I don't see the meeting as a statement'y kind of place.

> There won't be

> > statements from the floor.

> >

> > The time for statements of this kind was before August 2.

> We blew it.

> 

> Part of why I bothered to put time into this I really didn't

> have was

> because of this message, sent by you on Oct. 23, responding

> to Parminder's

> questions:

> 

> > From: Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>

> 

> > There's a "setting the scene" session on the afternoon of

> the first

> > day that might be a good time to ask some of these

> questions, and a

> > "taking-stock and the way forward" session on the final day

> for

> > others.

> >

> > We could submit them as questions from the caucus (if

> agreed). Or you

> > can send them as individuals.  Or I and I think other CS

> members of

> > the MAG would be happy to deliver them. Or someone can send

> them in

> > remotely, or blog them and Kieren might pick them up.

> >

> > IGF seems to be ignoring a large part of it's mandate

> > (<http://www.intgovforum.org/mandate.htm>)  It would be

> good to ask

> > why, but better to discuss how to we can start to address

> the

> > overlooked issues. (does why matter as much as improving

> things?)

> 

> Parminder then suggested that I draft something based on his

> questions, and

> I did, asking the very point you said should be asked.   The

> statement also

> raises issues you say in today's message should be raised,

> e.g.

> 

> > Para 6, (3) Delete 1st sentence.  Yes, we do need online

> working

> > groups. They have been raised in MAG and so far not been

> accepted.

> > Important that this is also raised as part of setting the

> scene.

> 

> Nevertheless,

> 

> > But as a member of the caucus I am bothered but a

> procedural point --

> > we have just undergone an incredibly long and painful

> process to agree

> > a charter and process, isn't this last minute draft exactly

> the kind

> > of thing the re-chartering was to avoid?

> 

> Yes it is, but at the time people were saying we need a

> statement, shouldn't

> waste the opportunity, etc.  Whatever, let's move on.

> 

> Cheerio,

> 

> Bill

> 

> 

> ____________________________________________________________

> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>      governance at lists.cpsr.org

> To be removed from the list, send any message to:

>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

> 

> For all list information and functions, see:

>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061027/b369d554/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20061027/b369d554/attachment.txt>