[WSIS CS-Plenary] CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four of Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents

[richard jordan]

I too find it a little strange, since I was a legal proofreader for many years, and believe me, errors can occur, but that's why you proofread documents against the original.

And again, we are being multistakeholdered to death. I will not rehearse the litany about the pros and cons, just to say that I am more interested in how capacity building occurs in these relationships rather than saying who is doing what with someone else.

Richard J.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hervé Le Crosnier" <herve at info.unicaen.fr>
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four of Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 09:59:13 +0200

> 
> karen banks wrote:
> > dear all,
> >
> > passing this on at Ayesha Hassan's request.
> >
> 
> 	Good morning, (sorry, only my poor english, cause
> 	i ain't got enough time to translate... and more
> 	i hate machine-translation, as far as i can read
> 	english, spanish and french, i never recognize anything
> 	when i read machine translation :-(((
> 
> 	First, i think that circulating documents is not
> 	approving them, may be even it's sometime quite
> 	the contrary. So thank you Karen for circulating
> 	this one and its preceding version. As far as I beleive that
> 	CCBI vision is opposite to mine, something i see
> 	for my experience of reading their papers, i'm always
> 	interessed to have a look at their views, to prepare
> 	my answers.
> 
> 	Second, it's really troubling to look at what they
> 	pretend to be a mistake. Is the cut-and-paste error
> 	becoming a diplomatic apology, as incredible as it
> 	can be.
> 
> 	The paragraph they get off is the one talking about
> 	"flexibility" they see as inherent to the working
> 	fare of the information society. I write a paper
> 	on the first version, highlithing exactly this paragraph.
> 	This message circulated on this list, but was in french only,
> 	so may be no one read it :-((
> 
> 	Now, the paragraph, and the fact that CCBI get it off,
> 	can be read two ways :
> 	- flexibility is inherent, so we need to impose it, and
> 	  for that objective, we need to contact with representative
> 	  organisations of workers (that was my reading, and i
> 	  fear that this "negociation" with only one way out
> 	  will be the model for the years to come)
> 	- flexibility is such an important issue that it's even
> 	  not necessary to compell with any "negociation". Worse
> 	  isn't it ?
> 
> 	How do CS negociators interpret this ?
> 
> 	What i fear is that supporting "multistakholderism" could
> 	drive us blind to the meaning of the wordings on each
> 	"stakehholder" party. I can support multistakholderism
> 	as far as it is a way to clarify objectives, even contradictory,
> 	and to engage in a governance negciations where positions
> 	of grassroot bodies can be heard. If it's only a new way
> 	to write obfuscated discourses to drown the fishes, i won't
> 	be able to follow such a looser way to deal with problems of the
> 	information society.
> 
> 	The incredible manner of CCBI to put and then to get off
> 	paragraphs, arguing of "cut-and-paste" is not a good signal...
> 
> 	But the most important is to talk about such "flexibility"
> 	mecanism in the information society, and to have a CS view on
> 	this. Trade Union offer some highlights on this during the
> 	Geneva phase. We have to look deeper at this.
> 
> Hervé Le Crosnier
> 
> 
> 
> > regards
> > karen
> >
> >> Subject: CORRECTED VERSION:CCBI input on Chapters One and Four 
> >> of Operational Part of WSIS-Tunis documents
> >> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 10:25:46 +0200
> >> From: "HASSAN Ayesha" <ayesha.hassan at iccwbo.org>
> 
> >> Dear Wolfgang, Bertrand, Renate and Karen,
> >>
> >> A mistake was found and corrected in the text of the previous 
> >> version of the CCBI input that I sent to you on 19 May.
> >> And the cut and paste of the full ILO, OECD, UNCTAD comments 
> >> which included a proposed new [new 6k4.] k4. was not deleted in 
> >> the drafting process.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Plenary mailing list
> Plenary at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary