[governance] Who are we?

[willi uebelherr]

Dear Deirdre,

yes, i support very much your intention. But not your way, how you 
practice it.

The objection of Norbert is entitled. I don't know the history of all 
the groups. But what i see and what i learned is, that all people want 
to change the situation, that the most part of the people on our planet 
have no free access to this system, what we give the name "Internet".

But all we know, with a free flow of information, the time for wars on 
our planet is ended. And also the time for poverty and hunger. And we 
all know, that every process where we search for a way of cooperation in 
a diversity space we extend our capacity for the intercontinental and 
intercultural cooperation.

We all have different biography, a very different space of experience. 
Therefore a very diffent thinking of, what we can do and how we can do.

The most problem for me im this groups of open discussion is, that the 
form and interpretation of the form stay in the foreground. And not the 
content. And this I also felt, when I read the text of Norbert and 
Richard. And similar I experienced while reading the Delhi Declaration 
from the JNC.

Maybe, my interpretation is wrong. It is a very subjectiv 
interpretation. We find in many discussion very good reflections, very 
clear cognitions, a high level of inside knowledge. But not clear view 
of, what are our destinations.

All this structures of workgroups, meetings, events and any thing are 
only helpful, if we have a base about, how we want create an open 
interconnection of all people on our planet.

JFC he wrote about. He is very attacked from many people. Why?
He wrote in his answer to Wolfgang:
"The activist power was in the technology and innovation."

This is for me the core. What we have really to define and create? Only 
to be part of "Governance"? Together with all this actors of only 
"Governance"? Then we can fight for "Governance" and never for an open 
system for worldwide communication and transport of information.

Governance have to be an instrument, if we think, that we need it. Also 
Norbert and Richard wrote about at the end:
"Not all aspects of human activity require regulation or any other kind 
of explicit governance action." But why we need governance? This 
question is always the first. And if we find a positive answer, then and 
only then we should act for Governance.

I hope, you and all are not angry with me. And please, excuse my bad 
english.

many greetings, willi
Cordoba, Argentina


Am 23-May-15 um 10:10 schrieb Deirdre Williams:
> Dear Norbert,
> Is it better expressed if I say that Bestbits and JNC each appears to use
> its own space as a space to agree and the IGC space as a space to disagree?
> And that the disagreements are often full of rancour?
>
> Democracy is a word, like multistakeholderism, which can be used for good
> purposes and for bad purposes. I say that, with an example, as a statement
> of fact not as a judgement on anyone or any institution.
>
> I think civil society has been divided and stands in great danger of being
> absolutely ruled.
> Let's stop that happening.
>
> Deirdre
>
>
> On 23 May 2015 at 08:40, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 2015 07:48:46 -0400
>> Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It is distressing that both Bestbits and JNC, having each decided
>>> that they preferred to come together with likeminded persons, should
>>> both then decide to use IGC as a battleground.
>>
>> Being a co-founder and co-convenor of the Just Net Coalition (JNC),
>> the last part of this statement and its implied mischaracterization of
>> the nature of my postings is in my eyes highly offensive and quite
>> inappropriate.
>>
>> I hereby formally request an apology.
>>
>>> Earlier this week I was present at a meeting locally at which a
>>> venerable and respected NGO (turned 60 last year) was probably killed
>>> by people shouting for democracy.
>> [..]
>>> So let’s regroup so that we can present a common front and so that
>>> “they’ll see how beautiful (and powerful) [we] are, and be
>>> ashamed” (with apologies to Langston Hughes)
>>
>> Does this mean that those who care about democracy, and who consider it
>> essential that it must be accepted and respected when people talk about
>> the need for governance to be truly democratic, will have to go
>> elsewhere?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Norbert



-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t