<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>So what are we talking about ? - Does taking the
initiativ</title></head><body>
<div>At 6:02 PM +0200 7/15/04, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Quite frankly: I am still considering whether I want to submit the<br>
level of detailed personal information that you have requested for
use<br>
on your Wiki page.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>i did mention - in the original message what points and/or items
you did not want publically listed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
Never having taken part in any meeting and often feeling out of
the<br>
loop even on this list, things still seem very opaque to me. And I<br>
don't think that a Wiki with personal information about the people<br>
involved will change any of that.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>again - the original message stated very clearly that privacy
concerns would be respected. if you don't want something to be known,
fine - say it's not to be listed.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
rg> Failure to reply - will be interpreted as a lack of
interest, and<br>
rg> bring into question your ability to provide the required
minimum<br>
rg> level of commitment needed as a CSB member.<br>
<br>
I am not sure when you were formally given such level of authority
to<br>
decide on behalf of global civil society who is entitled to be part
of</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>the CSB and who isn't. It appears to be
one of the things I missed.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div>Authority - all I say , is that "lack of interest will be
interpreted as a lack of interest". I think that's an obvious
point. As to who judges that, we'll it's not me for sure.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I'm just being proactive and taking the initiative - if you want
to do the same, please do...</div>
<div><br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Knowing that some people in some parts of
the world can occasionally<br>
be out of touch for more than month, I would strongly advise
against</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>adopting such a "if you don't reply
within 24hrs, you're out" policy.</blockquote>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>that's a convenient answer - however, getting information
about CSB - making it more "open" and transparent for people
to know who's involved is something that has been discussed for a long
time.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In case you don't remember :</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/bureau/2003-December/000223.ht<span
></span>ml</div>
<div>RunningToddler Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:11:10
+0800</div>
<div>Re: Re: CSB Evaluation Process</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>...the Asia Pacific family is keen to be part of any<br>
evaluation exercise that the CSB undertakes. I do request though that
this</div>
<div>takes place not before the second half of January.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>NOTE: JANUARY - WE ARE SIX MONTHS OVERDUE!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/bureau/2004-February/000238.ht<span
></span>ml</div>
<div>Sean O Siochru - Tue, 24 Feb 2004 10:40:03
+0000</div>
<div>Re: Meeting in Tunis</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>... it is now vital that the various organs of civil society
enter into open dialogue and debate internally and transparently where
they are going, leading up to whenever the next PrepCom is going to
be. It is absolutely vital that this be open, and therefore I
appeal again for the use of the <bureau@wsis-cs.org>
list.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Note: Sean, Alain's and Nick's call for ideas, dialogue and
assessment was discussed at the informal meeting in Tunis. That item
(and many others) were mentioned in the great report that Viola sent
to us all on Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:50:49 +010. BTW: It's
also archived on the wiki</div>
<div><http://cms.privaterra.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=44></div
>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In case you haven't gone through it, on Page 5 you will
find -</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><i>..Confirmation of Focal points For phase 2 of the WSIS, it is
necessary to have the position of CS Bureau Members reconfirmed
(they will need to get legitimacy from whom they represent, e.g.
reconfirmation or elections in each family, as it was done at
PrepCom 2 of phase 1). The evaluation can help do this.
....</i></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>So in summary - The point about evaluation and re-confirmation of
CSB points isn't something new, but instead something that has been on
"the table' for a very long time.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>All I have tried to do - is to be blunt and try to scream a bit
to get the attention of the CSB members. Seeing the amount of replies
i'm getting, as well as the increase in traffic on the list - my
effort seems to have yielded a positive result.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Again, all i've done is what ANY of us COULD have done ---- and
didn't. I just took the initiative to try something to help. In no
means should it be seen (directly or indirectly) as a move on my part
to assume any decision making powers, authority or anything of the
sort.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>A discussion on this list, and in other CS spaces - about CS
structures including "CSB" is long overdue and much needed.
It's been called for repeatedly, and I for one am keen for that to
happen. if my "friendly" threats have the effect of
generating movement - hey, then wonderful. I'd rather not use that
approach, but it seems that being kind and gentile yields no action -
thus, being loud seems to be the only way to gets people's
attention..</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Civil Society mentions repeatedly the need for openness and
transparency - so we should practice what we preach and have as much
of our contact info, affiliations and communications online. So why
shouldn't the CSB do the same? sigh!</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>In summary, two things:</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(1) The point you raise - the ".... level of authority
to decide on behalf of global civil society who is entitled to be part
of the CSB and who isn't." is the big question - which has been
open and not answered for far too long. Like it or not, more
responsibilities are being given to the CSB - being the opaque
structure that it is - its own role, responsibility and yes - power
needs to be discussed, articulated and defined.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>(2) I care enough to spend some of my own personal time and
energy to try to help. I'm not in it for myself, but to help out
in as an altruistic way as possible. That's always been my aim. You
can think what you want about me, but what I always try to be is
- open, honest, collaborative and altruistic.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>I feel offended and hurt when others see it in another light,
worse when they try to discredit me (as has happened in other venues)
to take my good and honest intentions to be some ploy by outside
actors to control CS in someway. All i can say is this - i've learned
the hard way that dealing with CS is something that's difficult. But,
such is life - I'm interested to be in this space, and will
try to do my best. May my actions over the long term speak for
themselves.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>regards</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Robert</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>-- </div>
<div>###<br>
Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org><br>
Privaterra - <http://www.privaterra.org></div>
</body>
</html>