[discuss] Towards an Internet Social Forum
willi.uebelherr at gmail.com
Sun Feb 1 14:23:55 UTC 2015
i thank you very much for this clarification. In particular for:
"knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different
nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality ,
justice, access, knowledge, bridging the digital divide etc. .."
mamy greetings, willi
La Paz, Bolivia
Am 01/02/2015 um 08:01 a.m. schrieb "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang":
> thx. for the discussion.
> The "speak with one voice" question can be easily answered: It is the outcome of a process where different CS groups participate in a bottom up open, transparent and inclusive drafting process and agree on common languge around a number of issues. This has been possible in the past from the CS WSIS 2003 declaration via numerous statements in CSTD, IGF, UNESCO, ITU/WTPF and others. This was workable on the basis of a principle which was inspired by Jon Postels RFC 793."Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept".
> If the various CS Groups return to RFC 793, there is a good chance to reach rough consensus among the various groups so that we can speak seriously with "one" voice in the WSIS 10+ process, knowing that this "one voice" is based on a broad variety of different nuances but is united around basic values as human rights, equality , justice, access, knowledge, brdiging the digital divide etc. ..
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Mawaki Chango
> Gesendet: So 01.02.2015 10:24
> An: Internet Governance; Norbert Bollow
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Towards an Internet Social Forum
> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> WK is
>> calling for civil society to "speak with one voice".
>> So I find it natural to ask how it would be determined what this "one
>> voice" says concretely!
> I find this question one of the most critical questions we are faced with.
> It pertains to the same problem and observation that previously led me to
> state that IGC does not have just ONE voice. Interesting enough, you
> (Norbert) replied the following which I don't disagree with but just wasn't
> the issue implied by my statement.
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 12:03:20 +0000
>> Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In other words, IGC which is also a CSCG member is certainly not one
>> In fact, despite all its shortcomings (which include the fact that
>> what the Charter says about enforcing the posting rules is not being
>> done, and may in fact be impossible to do) IGC. i.e. this list, right
>> now is still the best place to go to when desiring a broad discussion
>> inclusive of the whole variety of civil society viewpoints.
> So the question is How and When can IGC have a unique/common/united voice
> (you choose your preferred adjective)?
> Part of it is the representation-accountability dimension which seems to be
> what you're concerned with here (and yes, while mentioning the
> non-enforcement of posting rules in passing.) But the other big part is
> this: What will it take for members to accept that their views, no matter
> how strong they feel about them, may not carry the day (and they certainly
> cannot always
> and still allow the group to make a decision while keeping peace and trust
> among us? This applies to all sides of our worldview spectrum.
> In my opinion, this question cluster is the million dollars knot for IGC to
> untie (solve) in order to be functional again.
>> In particular, some kind of credible plan would be needed to prevent
>> such a determination from being made on behalf of civil society as a
>> whole in a way that in reality might be significantly less inclusive
>> than it would claim to be.
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the discuss