[governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

Eric Dierker cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net
Thu Aug 26 22:44:21 EDT 2010


Thank you Ginger for clarifying the threads. Perhaps it is in that clarity that 
we can understand more about the substance of a Speakers goals.  I did not 
support the speakers because of who they are but for what they have proven they 
stand for.  I believe that the thread as carried on by Wolgangs, Paul and others 
is settling nicely into the nuance of differing "proclamations" of self evident 
truths that we hold dear and stand for on this list.

So in choosing a Speaker we are saying the most we collectively can say with 
clarity as to what our standards, expectations of others and goals are in fact. 
 Are we to chose a mouthpiece and put the words in their mouth or are we to 
chose a visionary that carries our message in her very breath.

In keeping more easily with the thread.  I believe we are best served by taking 
important messages from any of the mentioned 
declaration/proclamation/manifestations of will and emphasizing them in our 
message. It is not a time to endorse or further one community or another but 
rather to exemplify the human commonality and equality. 

I believe that often sound bites are what listeners can get a hold of rather 
than long treatises or exhaustive explanations of importance.

1. Is it our duty to protect the great against the small? Or our place to give 
the smallest voice protection from the greatest force?
2. Should our role be to roll back accepted principals, for expedience and 
globalization, or to defend those principles from the steamroller of progress?
3. Are we today holding up the values of our society for the future or are we 
changing them for our futures?

And statements of endurance:

We must incorporate as paramount those principles upon which the UN is founded 
if we are to move forward with integrity.

CS must stand for something or it will fall for anything.  It is society's right 
to have informed leaders, it is Civil Society's duty to inform those leaders.

Standing for Rights and Right should never be viewed as a difference.

We must open the minds of the many so that the few can be heard

Ignorance is the root of fear that only communication can keep from sprouting

Let others champion the cause of Industry, let CS champion the cause of Society

My two cents -- now back to my books.





________________________________
From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>; Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 9:48:00 AM
Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

We need to work on the selection of speakers,       and I ask that you discuss, 
support and suggest on the speaker       thread. On this thread, may we please 
have suggestions for two       (one opening, one closing) topics and main points 
to be made?

We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal       consensus 
that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and       with main points as 
defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you       disagree, particularly if 
you are a nominated speaker, please post       your views as well.

Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger


On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: 
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/20100826/741e41fb/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


More information about the Governance mailing list