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

[parminder]

I like this approach. Parminder

On Tuesday 24 August 2010 01:54 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>> 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. :-)
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto: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 <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>     To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>     <mailto: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/20100824/7d29f3a1/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