[WSIS CS-Plenary] Just a small clarification

Sun Sep 25 11:45:57 BST 2005

Sorry for reposting the email below onto plenary list but for some reason my
postings to the governance list are not showing up. Could be a technical
glitch. 

Thanks Avri, Tracey, Betrand and others for coming forth with the right
spirit which will help us along. Even if we don't get what we want from
governments, we have a unique oportunity to walking the talk amongst
ourselves in civil society, which could set the pace for future conferences,
when we can make even greater impacts. 

Please therefore see my reposting below which I sent to Avri just to clarify
where I am coming from.

Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: Laina Raveendran Greene [mailto:laina at getit.org] 
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 12:21 PM
To: 'Governance Governance Caucus'
Subject: Sorry Avri if I have given you the wrong impression

 Apologies Avri if this appears that I am trying to be difficult or speaking
on behalf of the Ethics group in the comments I post. I am not speaking
about the statement we put in that we may feel left out about. If this does
not go in so be it, but we hope the spirit of it will. I already notice on
the governance caucus list, the concept of "trusteeship" in Governance,
which is what our statement is about has already been discussed.

We have no agenda beyond making the process conducted in the right spirit,
especially with "inclusiveness" and "multistakeholder". I was merely
referring to the statement made at Plenary where Jeanette seemed to present
that IG Caucus had made a decision that if we were not allowed in the room,
that we should walk out of the remaining process. I agreed with the spirit
of what she said, but was not sure we had the right to decide for everyone
in the room.

Sorry if I misunderstood her and I thank you and Bertrand for clarifying
things for me. I have no issues with Jeanette and have no agenda. I do not
also speak for all the members of the caucus except when we work together to
write common statement.

Values and Ethics Caucus stands for very simple principles such as ensuring
process are kept in the right spirit of bringing people together, for peace
and unity. No value judgements will ever be made on our part on subjective
value issues, and we hold no agendas or issues on any of the things you
mentioned below. I am sorry if I appeared to be an instrument of division
when I was trying to be an instrument of peace and as a facilitator for the
smaller voices= to ensure all voices are heared. I was getting concerned
that the lady from Nepal representing indigenous rights, Kiki on a wheel
chair, the disabled lady from South Africa, etc were going to be left out
and suffer hardship for having come here all the way, if we took a hardline
approach to negotiations and we rush so fast that their voices never get
heared or they get so intimidated by our own Civil Society process.

Avri, I truly have appreciated the spirit of your comments and will continue
to do so. Again, I have no clear views against Jeanette or any others, but
just want to see the process go through "inclusive" and "multistakeholder"
as we are asking the governments to do the same.

Thanks Avri and I hope I have clarified that Values and Ethics has no
political or value judgement positions beyond that of promoting unity and
ensuring that even the smallest voice does not get left behind. Please also
don't take it we are here to judge anyone's values or ethics and are fully
aware that value can be a subjective things. We are all very open minded
spirited people, I believe. We are instead looking at ensure some universal
concepts such as peace and unity at a higher level and in the case of
Internet Governance= a concept of "trusteeship" and "shared responsibility"
for the Internet generation of today and tomorrow. I hope that helps clarify
where I am coming from.

Thanks,
Laina

-----Original Message-----
From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:47 AM
To: Laina Raveendran Greene
Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups
going into closed sessions

Hi,

I don't think anyone has been representing their opinion as the opinion of
the group.  For over a year now, the co-ordinators of the Gov Caucus have
been very careful to make sure that we all know that unless it is a written
statement that has been discussed in the caucus, they speak only for
themselves, which I would agree, they have a right to do.

I think that with only a week to go, this sort of internecine conflict will
only distract us from our real goals - to affect the output of WSIS.  I
understand that you and your constituencies have some late comments that you
want to get into the governance statements.  And I think you have every
right to try and get them in, though as one member of the caucus I am not
sure I understand or agree with it.

I am not a member of the ethics caucus and don't understand, for example,
how to differentiate between the claims of ethics and advocacy for the
restriction of content and the abrogation of freedom of expression.  ethics
is always a difficult measure to apply as we all have different ethical
vantage points.  For example I know that as a bisexual person my very
existence is considered an ethical affront by many of those who argue for
ethical standards, and affront on a par with pedophilia.  And even though we
don't not have a GBLT caucus, I worry about accepting any language that
gives justification to such attitudes.  I tend to think that we are better
off relying on law when it comes to the issues that many of those who
support an ethical internet espouse.

a.

On 25 sep 2005, at 11.16, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire 
> list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for 
> specific people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic 
> translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
>
>
> Dear McTim,
>
> I guess I am under the impression that a Coordinator works on 
> collecting the inputs of others opinions before making a proposal on 
> behalf of the group, as opposedto presenting her opinion as a proposal 
> from the group.
> It just
> helps keep the process a little more open, just as Tracy has been 
> carefully doing. "leadership" and "coordination" are two different 
> roles.
>
> It is just a matter of process that helps keep matters "inclusive" and 
> "multistakholder". Beyond that, I have no issues with Jeanette's 
> passion and leadership, am very happy to see someone so involved and 
> concerned about the issues for others.
>
> Regards,
> Laina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]
> On Behalf
> Of McTim
> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 11:08 AM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting 
> groups going into closed sessions
>
> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire 
> list.
> Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific 
> people]
>
> Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic 
> translation of this message!
> _______________________________________
>
> On 9/24/05, Laina Raveendran Greene
>
> <snip>
>
>>
>> I do think that if Jeanette has strong views on this, she should step 
>> down
>>
>
> Why would we want someone without strong views as coordinator?
>
> Jeanette, you have my many thanks for your enourmously important 
> contribution.
>
> Ralf, Thanks for your most reasonable .05 (euro?) cents as well.
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> nic-hdl:      TMCG
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>