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

[Robert Guerra]

Enrique:

mi intent— solo fue de informar a lista de plenaria - sin m‡s. Si es 
que tenia que haber sido comunicado por otra persona - pues, lo 
siento. No sab’a que exist’a tal acuerdo informal - ahora lo sŽ, y 
para nada volverŽ a comunicar aqui cosas del espacio LAC.

Gracias por enviar algo de comentarios - realmente, lo agradezco.

Lo que veo que he hecho - ahora estan todos enfadados conmigo en 
lugar. Quizas, llegar logrŽ "cambiar en tema". Espero - realmente - 
que pasado este "episodio"  que la discusion vuelva a los temas aun 
abiertos.  Los temas para  - consensuar  - pues no son nada faciles.

### english

My aim was to inform the plenary of what was being discussed - 
nothing more. If the information should have been mentioned here (on 
this list) by someone else - well, i'm sorry. I did not know that 
there was an informal agreement in existence - I now know, and will 
not inform the people in this space about what's going on in LAC 
(latin american and carribean) list.

As for your comments - thanks, much appreciated.

I see now, that by my coments - now everyone (in the LAC caucus) 
seems upset with me. Well, it does seem that I managed to "change the 
topic" (of the ongoing discussion). I hope - really - that after this 
"episode" that the discussion return to the open and pending issues. 
The items (and issues) to find a consensus around are nothing easy..



regards

Robert


At 12:32 AM -0300 7/11/04, Enrique A. Chaparro wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 14:10:31 -0400
>Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>
>:::: En espa–ol m‡s 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.

-- 
###
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org>