[governance] Reservations - Re: Response document to USG recent statements...
Milton:
Like others, I have numerous reservations on the response document
you are drafting.
You should not quickly dismiss the points related to in what "name"
the response document should be issued. Just because you and several
others that share your opinion are part of civil society does not
mean you can speak on behalf of civil society as a whole. This point,
this issue, has been raised numerous times in the WSIS process. The
consensus approach in Civil society has been to first try to consult
with as many CS working groups and caucuses as possible and then only
issue a document "in the name of CS" if there is consensus.
I am on many WSIS related lists, and it seems that you have only just
consulted the internet governance caucus. Which is fine, but not
representative of all of CS @ WSIS. This list, if representative of
the caucus has expressed its reservations - as such, it can't be
called a "IG caucus statement" either.
Wrapping up, I will concur with all the points made by my colleague
Bill Drake earlier today. As Bill mentioned, you are of course free
to issue a statement on behalf of your institution and follow-up with
the press. You have been able to get good press coverage in the past,
and will no doubt get even better coverage on this issue.
regards
Robert
--
Robert Guerra <rguerra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>
On 19-Aug-05, at 1:34 AM, Milton Mueller wrote:
> Izumi:
> Thanks very much for making your views clear! I appreciate the time
> spent and the honesty of your disagreements. I will send another
> message
> responding to your points.
>
> Let me first clear up one item of possible confusion. I quickly added
> the header "DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT" before sending it out. I
> did
> not intend for the statement to claim to speak for all of "civil
> society." Global civil society has no unified view on any issue. The
> statement header was immediately followed by a statement referring to
> "the following signatories," indicating that I always had in mind a
> "sign on if you agree" model.
>
> But it is a "civil society statement" because it will come from civil
> society members who choose to support it. I use that term as an
> umbrella
> term for people in NCUC, ALAC and WSIS-CS, and other public interest
> groups who I expected to be supportive. There was no other convenient
> label. I hope to find a modification that avoids the "we represent all
> of civil society" confusion.
>
> The final group of signatories, in my opinion, has as much right to
> identify itself as "civil society" in the WSIS context as the 10-15
> active people on the Internet Governance Caucus list who issued a
> "Civil
> Society" response to the WGIG Report, because at the end of the day
> this
> statement will achieve many more signatories than there are members of
> the IGC list.
>
> Hope you can forward this to ALAC.
>
>
>>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu@xxxxxxx> 08/18/05 8:17 PM >>>
>>>>
> Therefore, I ask you not to try "represent" the Civil Society both
> at WSIS and ICANN with this draft. Honestly, the views are far more
> diverse than you have tried to put together, I am afraid. Of course,
> you are free to call for support and put this forward, but I don't
> think
> it's fair to label this as generic "CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT " as
> it stands.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance