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

[Eric Dierker]

Ginger,

When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that made an 
impact, I usually just remember the substance.  And on some I remember the 
speaker but danged if I remember what position they were speaking from. I do 
remember Mandela making some speech but I could not say in what capacity.  I 
remember "I have a dream" but I do not even know in what capacity the Rev. 
spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made some I loved but as a student and I know this 
includes the great Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do 
not know.

Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite.  Whether the 
speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and not the messenger.  Let 
us hear what our best contributors have to say, let them strike a cord of 
interest, let them lead us to further dialogue and deeper thought.  Only the 
power of their words - or the absence of, will determine if they speak for the 
greater community.

As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators will ring 
with earnestness, passion and intelligence.  I participated in the vote for them 
not so as to exclude them but to franchise them with an empowerment to do their 
best and they have honored that trust.

Eric


 



________________________________
From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
To: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>; Jeremy 
Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM
Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's

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")
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100824/ffbc6ced/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