[governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's
Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google
tracyhackshaw at gmail.com
Tue Aug 24 07:34:53 EDT 2010
Aye. Aye. (Desk Thump). I support.
Tracy
On 8/24/10, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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")
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list