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

[karen banks]

Dear all,

Laina asked me to forward this message to the list.

Laina - and all - mailman, the list software we use for most CS WSIS lists 
- often rejects messages (or queues messages) with list addresses in the 
'cc' line - which may have been the reason this message didn't make it to 
the list (though i don't find it in the admin queue)

karen
ps.. and, i do apologise if this is a duplicate (or in fact posted to the 
wrong list) - the volume of traffic is high and it's difficult to keep 
track of everything

------

 From Laina in response to Avri:

 > 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