[WSIS CS-Plenary] Open letter sent to latin american caucus - lessons for us all to learn...

[Enrique A. Chaparro]

On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:10:31 -0400
Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:

RG> Dear colleagues:
RG> 
RG> Since a bit before the PrepCom in Tunis there has been an ongoing, at 
RG> times bitter and problematic, discussion on the latin american caucus 
RG> list related to the  issue - the passionate topic  - of Free and Open 
RG> source software. It generated a great deal of debate. After countless 
RG> messages -  it was necessary for key organizations to issue an "open 
RG> letter" to refocus the aims, objectives and guidelines of the caucus.
RG> ( The "open letter" is below - in spanish.)

:::: En español más abajo ::::

As a subscriber of both lists, and a participant of the WSIS process,
I feel obliged to amend some of the Robert's assertions:
1 - The debate extended well beyond the free software issues, and
    included at least[1] issues on patents and copyrights, (passionate)
    arguments
    on legitmacy and coherence, and visions on the usefulness/convenience/ethics
    of attending the Hamamet meeting.

2 - The last sentence contains several inaccuracies:
2.1 _Some_ individuals (about 15% of those subscribed to the list), and
the organizations they speak for, prepared and sent a document in two
parts: (a) a statement of their views on the above mentioned debate and (b)
a proposal of plan of action for the Caucus. The statement, the plan or
both were then endorsed by other members.
2.2 That document did not ``refocus the aims, objectives and guidelines
of the caucus.'' It's still subject of dicussion among the LAC list's
subscribers.

Any assessments on which organizations are the "key" ones in the LAC
Caucus are, of course, Robert's own opinion.


:::: English above ::::

Como suscriptor de ambas listas, y participante en el proceso de la CMSI,
me siento obligado a modificar algunas de las afirmaciones de Robert:

1 - El debate se extendió más allá de las cuestiones de software libre,
e incluyó por lo menos cuestiones sobre patentes y derechos de autor,
(apasionados) argumentos sobre legitimidad y coherencia, y visiones
sobre la utilidad, conveniencia y etica de asistir a la reunión de
Hamamet.

2 - La última frase contiene varias inexactitudes:

2.1 Algunas personas (alrededor del 15% de las suscriptas a la lista)
y las organizaciones en cuyo nombre participan, prepararon y enviaron
un documento en dos partes: (a) una declaracion sobre sus puntos de
vista sobre el debate mencionado mas arriba, y (b) una propuesta de
plan de accion para el Caucus. La declaración, la propuesta, o ambas,
recibieron luego la adhesion de otros mimebros.
2.2 El documento no `re-enfocó los propósitos, objetivos y lineamientos
del caucus''. Es aún materia de discusión entre los suscriptores de la
lista LAC.

Cualquier apreciación sobre cuales organizaciones son "clave" en el
caucus LAC es, desde luego, opinion personal de Robert.

Saludos desde el Lejano Sur,

Enrique

Note/Nota:

[1] Public archives of the list are available at//Se dispone de archivos
publicos de la lista en: http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/lac/


-- 
``Izena duen guzia omen da.''
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/plenary/attachments/20040711/6ee8c9e7/attachment.pgp