[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