[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] Re: [WSIS-CT] Background of my objection on final statement of Internet Governance Caucus

[mclauglm at po.muohio.edu]

You miss my point entirely. I am stating that all 
voices should be heard if the speaker wishes to 
speak, in response to a statement that suggested 
that not being in the room means that one's 
opinion may be discounted later, strangely 
enough, as "uncivil." I don't have evidence to 
answer your final question regarding what 
prevails as majority opinion and what constitutes 
a minority opinion. Let us not make assumptions 
about that given the silence (and sometimes 
silencing) of so many CS entities, perhaps the 
majority of those who were involved in the first 
phase of the summit.

Regards,

Lisa


>mclauglm at po.muohio.edu ha scritto:
>>1. YJ has the right to express her opinion any 
>>time and anywhere that she wishes to do so. The 
>>fact that she was out of the room when the 
>>decision was made is beside the point. Lots of 
>>us were out of the room because we weren't in 
>>Geneva and/or weren't a member of the C&T group 
>>at this prepcom. I assume that it is not being 
>>suggested that the presence of individuals and 
>>groups especially and necessarily legitimizes 
>>their decisions. If that's the case, then we 
>>are an unrepresentative CS indeed.
>
>In this case, I kindly ask everyone to withdraw 
>any statement that was made by anyone during 
>this week at the PrepCom, since I could not 
>attend it.
>
>Is this what you suggest?
>
>3. "Hijacking" is a loaded and not especially 
>civil term. Perhaps it would be uncivil for me 
>to suggest that the WSIS process has been 
>hijacked by those who have the least (or no) 
>aversion to the corporatization of development.
>
>Is it hijacking, or is it simply that there is a 
>prevailing view and a dissenting minority? To 
>which extent a minority can stop the majority 
>from expressing its views, especially after due 
>procedures and discussion?
>
>Because if from one side you risk some voices to 
>be neglected, from the other you risk civil 
>society not ever being able to say anything, 
>which implies that only the private sector will 
>be heard by the governments. Thus you will reach 
>the exact opposite of the objective you say you 
>have.
>--
>vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary