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

Tue Aug 24 17:07:56 EDT 2010

I am completely fine with the rationale as explained by Bertrand, and
with Bill's concerns which were quite clear from the beginning..

It seems to me it's up to this group to decide what we want to make
with this opportunity, as long as we don't go off track of the general
context and purpose. By that I mean it would also be ok (imho) if the
group decides to take this opportunity, based on the fact that this is
a critical juncture, to make a position statement -- as opposed to
having individuals presenting their take on the group's perspectives
and sense of the way forward, etc. We don't have to make position
statement ONLY when the IGF formally calls for a position statement,
again as long as we're not off track with the broader agenda.

Otherwise, we may just keep it to the individual speakers and share
with them here the main points of strategic import we think should not
be missed at this particular occasion.

Either way, by the coordinators or other designated persons who do not
meet a fierce and articulated opposition from any Caucus member, is
fine by me.

Mawaki

p.s. Jeremy, the 3rd time is the good one... No, not for that :-) I'm
talking about me having clicked on 'send' too quickly the first two
times before adding my warm congratulations for what you and your
family have gotten through over the last 9 months or so, and for the
result. Very best wishes.

On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and important
> discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we should consider
> this carefully.
>
> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely
> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with a
> critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help the IGC
> mature into a more significant voice for CS.
>
> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, we must
> also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not (imho) any longer
> be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so the presentations must
> necessarily be very carefully prepared.
>
> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as suggestions
> on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in favor?
>
> Thanks to everyone,
> Best, Ginger
>
> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, 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> 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")
>
____________________________________________________________
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