[governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's

[Paul Lehto]

Jeremy,

My sincere wishes that your child grows up with health, vigor and
intelligence in a parent/child relationship of love and trust.

But hypothetically, especially as children become teenagers and
adults, while our love and trust of them remains (or mostly remains!)
the child would not be justified in saying he speaks for the parents,
or even the parents 'general values', simply by virtue of having been
around the house and been party to conversations there over the years,
especially on a matter of any importance.  The child and parents would
have to confer over what was to be said in a specific context with
specific consideration of the strategies applicable therein for their
to be any agency or representation even to speak to "general values"
and most especially to do so in a strategic way that will impact the
parents in future situations.

My analogy, as I'm sure all sense, is that "trust" and even love has
little or nothing to do with the extent of the authority or agency
that is created to speak on behalf of another person, persons, or
group of people.  Community editing of statements and such is one of
several possible processes that would create an agency, regardless of
whether the scope of the agency is limited (general values), mid-range
(general values with strategic positioning), or specific (speaking for
a group's position and making or responding to a specific proposal).

Paul Lehto, J.D.

On 8/23/10, Hartmut Richard Glaser <glaser at nic.br> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeremy,
>
> --
> /I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some
> hours ago
> and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) /
> --
>
> Congratulations ...
>
> All the best
>
> Hartmut
>
> ===================================
> On 23/8/2010 19:15, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
>> <bdelachapelle at gmail.com <mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the
>>> message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into
>>> account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other
>>> fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach;
>>> and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the
>>> speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but
>>> should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself.
>>> This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy.
>>
>> I agree up until now, but...
>>
>>> This *clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list,
>>> *as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient
>>> opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the
>>> diversity of viewpoints.
>>
>> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you
>> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and
>> closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC
>> statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those
>> nominated.
>>
>> Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding
>> they will not depart too radically from our general views.
>>
>> Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as
>> your post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger
>> for her views and also invite others to comment.
>>
>> I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some
>> hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-)
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t