[WSIS CS-Plenary] Challenging Sub-committee A drafting groups going into closed sessions

[Avri Doria]

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
>
>