[governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2

[Parminder]

Seconding Bill, I too call upon members to try and evolve a consensus on the
proposed statement. We agree that we could have done better - with more lead
time, more discussions etc, and we - as coordinators - will learn our
lessons and do better the next time. However, it must be said that the
proposed statement was open for comments for quite a few days, and those of
us who (rightly) care for our views to be considered for inclusion should
respond in good time...

We will also try to evolve processes so that people are sounded out more
frequently and with more time... 

The present statement generally consists of such elements that have had some
agreement in this group over time... Some may want more to be included, and
some of the things to be said with greater force. It will be good to list
these points separately (not necessarily for inclusion in the present
hopefully consensual statement) and let IGC members who are attending the
meeting take them up at the meeting. 

Apart from its substantive weight, making a statement on the behalf of the
caucus is also procedurally important, and we should keep that imperative in
mind. 

Thanks. 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: Sunday, February 11, 2007 2:58 PM
> To: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] Statement for Feb 13, version 2
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 2/10/07 8:46 PM, "McTim" <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >>> Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the very limited
> >> representation of civil society in the first instance of the Advisory
> >> Group, which amounted to five
> >>> or less members over about forty.
> >>
> >> Why "five or less"? From the CS IG Caucus 5 people were selected and I
> >> know another person from Africa who is member of the Advisory Group and
> >> who is from civil society. I suggest we say "about 6".
> 
> > How about 12??  I am sure we already had this discussion, and never
> > decided how to decide how to count who was CS and who wasn't.  Or was
> > that a parallel universe I visit?
> 
> We have indeed discussed this repeatedly and there's no need to
> reconstruct
> again the historical meaning of the term, the way CS is commonly
> understood
> in all other global policy spaces and institutionalized in UN and other
> processes, or the stratagems that have led to it being rendered
> problematic
> and mysterious here, unless the objective is simply to reignite old
> debates
> and run out the clock on a caucus statement.  I would suggest a simple
> solution: insert "coalition that came together during the WSIS process" in
> the statement, i.e. "dissatisfaction [with] the very limited
> representation
> of the civil society coalition that came together during the WSIS
> process."
> That is after all what Vittorio is really referring to, and it factually
> uncontestable that ISOC was not part of that coalition and generally
> promoted positions that were at odds with those of both the caucus and the
> larger WSIS CS assemblage, most notably on whether there should even be an
> IGF.  With this modification we wouldn't have to get stuck navel gazing on
> the social ontology of the half of McTim's 12 that come from entities that
> weren't involved in the CS movement but which of course should be and are
> well represented in the mAG.
> 
> More generally, it seems like we are teetering on the edge of the same
> abyss
> we've fallen into repeatedly since the above and related fissures
> blossomed.
> Throughout WSIS the IGC managed to formulate consensus statements and make
> useful interventions, some of which arguably affected the process. But
> unless I'm misremembering, post-WSIS we didn't manage to submit any
> written
> inputs for the prior IGF consultations or for Athens.  We've repeatedly
> had
> texts rushed together at the 11th hour which were then picked apart with
> person x wanting change to provisions 1, 3, 5 and person y liking 1, 3, 5
> but wanting change to 2, 4, etc until we just deadlocked.  Everyone can
> quibble with parts of Vittorio's statement; there's certainly a number of
> things I'd prefer be changed too, if we had time.  Since we don't, can we
> maybe try to live with something that doesn't perfectly reflect each of
> our
> first preferences and get something submitted?  It'd be helpful to the
> IGF's
> planning for the caucus to raise some concerns, particularly if these are
> not expressed by other inputs.  Maybe just clean up the English a
> little...?
> 
> Best,
> 
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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