[WSIS CS-Plenary] fyi: caucus lac focal point/punto focal

[Beatriz Busaniche]

spanish and english

El jue, 23-09-2004 a las 11:43, Milton Mueller escribió:

> It is a well known problem in open lists that they can be 
> joined by the destructive as well as the constructive, those
> with a fixed agenda as well as those willing to engage,
> those attempting to dominate as well as those attempting
> to communicate and exchange.

hi milton, that could be right, but how do you catalogue people and
organizations between "destructive" and "constructive".  

policital disense is "destructive"? or constructive?  

how do you know that there's a group with a "fixed agenda".. let me ask:
who doesn't have a fixed agenda?  I have no doubt's that the group that
left the caucus has a fixed agenda, that is very clear, and that's not
wrong, they are working for this agenda.  

the question is: for which "agenda" do we work. 


Hola milton, eso puede ser correcto, pero cómo catalogas a la gente y
las organizaciones entre "destructivas" y constructivas".

El disenso político es "destructivo"? o "constructivo"?

Cómo sabes que hay un grupo con una "agenda arreglada"... déjame
preguntar: ¿ Quién no tiene una agenda arreglada ?   El grupo que se ha
ido del caucus seguro tiene una agenda arreglada, eso es claro, y no
está mal, están trabajando para esa agenda.

pregunta es:  para cuál "agenda" trabajamos. 

> When people abuse openness, their victims


there are no "victims", you could be sure of that.
The only victim here is "transparency". 

No hay víctimas,  puedes estar seguro de eso.
La única víctima aquí es la "transparencia". 

>  resort to 
> barriers. Not the best solution, but sometimes the only one
> available. My advice is for you to work this out with them,

there's people trying that, but seems to be difficult. 

hay gente intentandolo, pero parece ser dificil. 


> most of us on this list can not know what to do about it.

yes, for sure, but i brough this here because i want to prevent
misunderstandings around what is happening.

there's a group, a closed group, asking recognition as  voice of the LAC
caucus,  as much as they go on being a close private "exclusive" group,
they cannot be speak on behalf of latin american caucus. 

latin american caucus is working as always, in the public mailing list
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/lac/2004-September/date.html

i do respect the right of the people to work where they feel confortable
and with the people that makes them feel confortable.  so, i am not
against the existence of other /others groups in our regions. That, for
sure is healthy for all.

but, a closed group cannot be accepted as the "civil society voice" of
our region, and a focal point working behind "closed doors" cannot be
recogniced as focal point anymore.

just that
i am sorry, I understand that all the people in this mailing list maybe
don't understand what happens.

i just answered mails to prevent confusion. 

I am sure that there's a lot of misunderstandings around this issue, so
i am keeping my right to give you all my view of the facts. 

If plenary considers that this issue must be solve within LAC, could
someone please ask the people that left our public mailing list to come
back and give an open discusion there.

We.. - "the not invited" latin american citizens, cannot go to their
list, because is obvios.. it's closed!

.....


Si, por cierto, pero traje este tema a plenaria porque quiero prevenir
malos entendidos sobre lo que ocurre. 

hay un grupo, un grupo cerrado, pidiendo reconocimiento como voz del
caucus de america latina. En tanto sigan siendo un grupo privado,
exclusivo, no pueden ser la voz del caucus de america latina. 

El caucus de america latina sigue trabajando como siempre en la lista
pública 
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/lac/2004-September/date.html

respeto el derecho de la gente de trabajar donde se sienten confortables
y con la gente que los hace sentir confortables,  No estoy en contra de
la existencia de otro / otros grupos en nuestras regiones.  Eso por
cierto me parece saludable. 

Pero, un grupo cerrado no puede ser aceptado como "la voz de la sociedad civil" de nuestra región,
Un punto focal que trabaja detrás de puertas cerradas no puede ser reconocido como tal. 

Sólo eso. 
Lo lamento mucho, Comprendo que no toda la gente en esta lista entienda
lo que pasa. 

Sólo respondí mensajes para prevenir confusión. 
Estoy segura  de que hay muchos malos entendidos alrededor de esto, así
que estoy conservando mi derecho a dar mi visión de los hechos.


Si plenaria considera que este asunto debe ser resuelto al interior,
podrían por favor pedirle a la gente que dejó nuestra lista pública que
vuelva y de una discusión abierta allí.

Nosotros - los ciudadanos latinoamericanos  "no invitados", no podemos
ir a su lista por obvias razones,  es cerrada.

thank you for your interest Milton
Gracias por tu interés Milton

Abrazos
Beatriz






> --MM
> 
> 
> 
>