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

[Mawaki Chango]

I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls
for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules &
procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in
the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and
frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy).

I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far
accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this
is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to
reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while
emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any.
I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of
talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but
really not a collective elaboration of a full speech.

Just my opinion.

Mawaki

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:
> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
> <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. :-)
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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