<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p>Thanks for making these points, which by the way could very well have
been made without dragging in speculation on whether subi did or did not
plagiarize for her dissertation. </p>
<p>While I agree about the points you made on transparency and full
disclosure, these are best targeted at a discussion on the future
appointment of chairs for multistakeholder events. </p>
<p>And perhaps some clarity and a proportionate response to such
appointments based on whether the co chair of a particular event is a
honorary figurehead or is supposed to play an active role in shaping the
agenda and outcomes. </p>
<p>Thanks <br>
Suresh <br>
</p>
<div style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">
<p style="margin: 10pt 0; color: black;">On 21 April 2014 12:28:31 pm
Chinmayi Arun <chinmayiarun@gmail.com> wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0 0 0 0.75ex; border-left: 1px solid #808080; padding-left: 0.75ex;"><div
dir="ltr">
<p class="">Dear All, </p><p class="">I signed the<a
href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/4/Civil%20Society%20Letter.pdf">
Indian Civil Society letter</a> because I thought that a meeting as
significant as NetMundial should be especially careful about the process it
follows. Multi-stakeholder dialogue is and will always be an enterprise
that will need to be handled with a great deal of care. If we seek to
replace some inter-governmental processes with MS processes, surely we need
to build the same safeguards into the multi-stakeholder mechanisms that
exist in government functioning. It is therefore of the utmost importance
that transparency and accountability be a part of multi stakeholder
dialogue. I found it problematic that these did not feature in the
appointments of the Chair, and considered an obligation to point this out.
This is of course while maintaing my very high regard for all the people
who worked so hard to put NetMundial together - it cannot have been easy to
achieve so much so fast.</p>
<p class="">I am sorry that the conversation intended to be about the
process by which the Chairpersons were appointed has turned personal. It
was not meant to. If it helps, had I been appointed a Chair for this
conference by the same process, I would have considered that problematic
too. The heart of this is that the process should have been consultative
and transparent, regardless of who eventually gets appointed. </p>
<p class="">From the exchanges that have followed the letter, the other
question that I think is important and worth discussing in detail, is the
question about what constitutes conflict of interest. A wise colleague,
Sunil Abraham, said last week that we need to have a conversation about
what constitutes conflict of interest, and work at identifying the degree
of transparency necessary from anyone who wishes to be a part of multi
stakeholder decision making.</p>
<p class="">Towards this end, I am going to begin with transparency about
my own organisation, flagging all connections that ought to be of interest.
I will end with some thoughts about potential conflict of interest and the
bare minimum transparency that will make multi stakeholder dialogue more
comfortable for me. I hope that at least some of you will join me in
thinking this through in a way that is useful to us all in the future.</p>
<p class="">The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) is a research
centre at National Law University, Delhi. Ours is a public university which
gets a major part of its funds from Delhi state government. The Centre has
received Google sponsored funding from Tides Foundation - we were given
money for broad research areas concerning the Internet. CCG controls its
hiring (subject to approval from the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the
university), conclusions and research questions completely. We have no
obligations at all to Google. Apart from a narrative report and accounting
for the expenditure, we have few obligations to Tides. Since we have
already received the grant, we are not dependent on either entity for
ongoing financing. Neither Tides nor Google has ever attempted to influence
our conclusions, and Google has taken our public criticisms of its policies
and positions with very good grace.</p>
<p class="">I am also on the Government of India's MAG, representing
National Law University, Delhi, which is one of the academic stakeholders
on the MAG. The departments of the government from which the university
receives its funding are not on the MAG; our funding comes from the Delhi
state government, but it is the Indian Central government that is on the
MAG, not any of the state governments. Additionally, the administrative
heads of the university who liaise with the government in relation to
funding are not on the MAG. I don't therefore believe that any conflict
arises from this arrangement, but this is open for discussion.</p>
<p class="">Also on the MAG, is Sunil Abraham, who heads the Centre for
Internet and Society Bangalore, of which I am a fellow. Anybody who knows
CIS well will have seen already that it embraces diversity of opinion
within the organisation. My contract with CIS only discusses the research
and writing that I will be required to do, and not the opinions that I
hold. My online profile and my university email signature both mention that
I am a CIS fellow so this is something that everyone was aware of well
before I became a part of the MAG. Again, I would be happy to discuss this
in detail if anyone sees a potential conflict of interest here.</p>
<p class="">In general, if people are representing stakeholder groups in MS
dialogue, I would expect them to be very forthcoming about any payments/
other benefits that they receive from a different stakeholder group, or any
connections that they have with other stakeholders. Additionally, I think
it also helps for people within the same stakeholder group to be
transparent about their connections with each other. Civil society
connections are inevitable since civil society organisations finds
themselves sharing resources and mentoring other individuals and
organisations. But transparency about this is certainly warranted.</p>
<p class="">I hope that we can all take to being more open about these
things. I understand that we draw different lines in relation to what we
see as conflict of interest, and what we accept as ethical. But the only
way to get on the same page is to talk about it openly.</p>
<p class="">With my sincerest apologies for the direction in which our
letter dragged this conversation, and my hopes that it is not too late to
use it for a more useful conversation.</p><p class="">Best wishes,</p><p
class="">
Chinmayi</p><p class="">Chinmayi Arun</p><p class="">Research Director,
Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi</p><p
class="">
</p><p class="">Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore</p></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>