<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Thursday 17 January 2013 03:10 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Parminder<br>
</blockquote>
<snip><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
I also find it ironic given the high standards of disclosure
demonstrated when you were telling the IGC to support the Indian
government's CIRP proposal without mentioning your role in it, and
so on. :-) <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Interesting accusation. Now that you have made it, I hope you will
not run away from pursuing it, and provide the sought
clarifications. <br>
<br>
(1) What do you mean by 'my role in the CIRP proposal' - what role
you see I had in the CIRP proposal?<br>
<br>
(2) What do you mean by 'without mentioning your role in it'<br>
<br>
YOu know it pretty well that ITfC presented its version of CIRP
proposal first in dec 2010 during UN DESA consultation on EC, which
were public, and our submission was also separately submitted to
this elist, and had limited but harsh criticism from the likes of
Adam. The second time ITfC's proposal was publicly discussed was
during the Rio meeting in Sept 2011, and the concerned paper we
wrote also submitted to the IGC. What better transparency do you
expect. Of course, we advocate actively about all our IG and other
proposals with all the concerned actors. That is what every advocacy
organisation does, isnt it. Now if India liked our proposal and
submitted a (considerably) modified version of it as its own - where
does 'disclosure' issue comes in. Can you think of an NGO adopting
greater transparency. ITfC has always boldly stood up for whatever
we believe in... it is always all out there, even at the risk of
being unpopular. <br>
<br>
While all the above was always very public, when a Daily Mail
article made dark hints about CIRP proposal and the role of various
actors in it, and I think McTim asked us to respond on this list - I
wrote a 7-8 pager with all the details, about what happened and
how... Because we at ITfC do believe that such transparency and
accountability is the very basis of whatever legitimacy civil
society has... Every question that is publicly asked must be fully
responded to. And we always do...<br>
<br>
BTW, apart from answering the above two questions, can you also
remind me when did I ask IGC to support the CIRP proposal? I of
course often did try and expose the hypocrisy behind much of the
opposition to the CIRP proposal, mainly in terms of the close
engagement of many of the critics with a very similar structure at
the OECD level doing similar work that CIRP was supposed to do. <br>
<br>
And then there is the unfortunate 'look who is talking' aspect to
all this... Michael earlier raised the issue of the deep and
systematic nexus between US delegation and civil society at the WCIT
meeting. I am not against one off strategic linkages between CS and
govs, including being on official delegations, and preparing
statements/ drafts for govs, in order to obtain outcomes that a set
of civil society actors in any case believe in. However, what
happened at WCIT was rather, as I said, systematic and deep, and for
a big range of CS actors. And, well, there has been no reporting on
how this was all managed by CS actors. Bill, you were coordinating
CS statements (at the BestBits meeting) at the same time as you were
sworn to protect US national interests. Or am I mistaken... You were
also all along active on IGC list mouthing the exact US
positions.... Even when Mike spoke about the CS and US delegation
issue, even if you were sure about where you stood and being right
and unsullied, like I gave CIRP related explanations so many times
on this list - including now, maybe you also should have responded
with something (Avri did make a response). <br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:EBEF2FDC-F641-49F5-9E3E-A9B13536AEB3@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Games aside, I remain curious about your insistence the
nomcom spend time on an extra procedure that the Secretariat has
made clear is unnecessary, particularly when the discussion here
was about the tight time frame and urgent need to complete the
process. What purpose would it serve? I don't really care
much either way and would of course roll with whatever IGC
members have consensus on, but it seems like silly bureaucracy
to me. [Disclaimer: I am on the MAG, nominated by IGC and APC]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bill</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>