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

Tue Aug 24 04:24:07 EDT 2010

Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all,

I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding of
past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here.

However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open
consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed to
iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be
possible and useful for the IGF itself ?

The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed -
legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among prominent
members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road forward.
Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of speakers should not
become an implicit vote for one vision versus another but an opportunity to
identify elements of consensus and possible alternative options to nurture
the debate.

Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements of
opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an in-depth
discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not conducted so far
in a structured manner.

In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to
reformulate the proposal as follows :

1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and
Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and
asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have a
reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-)

2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a bit
too much,  a preparation on the list could help them identify the main
strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the potential points of
divergence (aka "options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of "talking
points"

As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and this
would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during the end
of the year.

Hope this helps.

Best

Bertrand

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100824/dd23d235/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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