process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Tapani is right, I admit, I was a bit strong. Apologies

I was stronger than I should have been on this list, based on what has or has not happened on this list as opposed to other lists with many of the same people.

But I beleive that if we do not function under a default of transparency, with secrecy only when something dire is threatened or personal privacy rights are involved, we destroy our legitimacy.  So much that is wrong is done under the cover of opacity and as civil society we need to be able to call people on that.  We need to be able to demand transparency everywhere.  How can we do that when we ourselves have secret lists.  And how can anyone who functions under any sort of transparency rules participate in such groups.

Civil Society often celebrates the whistleblowers because they bring transparency were there is none.  Will we need bestbits's own whistleblowers?

avri

On 31 Oct 2013, at 03:32, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

> While I wouldn't put in quite as strong terms as Avri,
> I tend to agree -- I also dislike secret lists.
> 
> Sometimes closed lists are unavoidable, but I see little
> need for such here, rather the contrary: it would eat
> our legitimacy, make it seem we don't act the way we preach.
> 
> I would have no problem with a closed-but-public list,
> i.e., one with restricted subscription but publicly
> visible archives, but I don't see much need for one here.
> 
> But what we're talking about is a closed list without
> public archives, with the explicit intent to prevent
> outsiders from seeing what's being discussed.
> I don't take an absolutist position against one, might
> even join (if allowed), but I advise strongly against it.
> 
> (A really secret lists, whose very existence is not
> public knowledge, I would want nothing to do with.
> Don't tell me.)
> 
> -- 
> Tapani
> 
> On Oct 31 00:56, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I tend to beleive that anything coming out of a secret list is suspect.  It might just be the machinations of the extremists on a list who can never achieve consensus in the clear light of day and who don't know how to work nicely with others.  And when civil society starts to doing it is a beginning of the end of a group's usefulness.
>> 
>> In practice I, for one, will never be able to accept a secret cabal's marching orders and will never accept the validity of anything that comes out of such a conspiracy.
>> 
>> We don't beat them by becoming like them.  If we start acting like a police state, which starts with conspiratorial secrecy and intimidation, we are lost as a useful part of the Ig dialogue.  Really sorry to see this list already take that turn.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 31 Oct 2013, at 00:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> 
>>> On 31/10/13 03:01, Carolina Rossini wrote:
>>>> This is the main point that we should all agree on - and it was agreed on during the Best Bits meeting:
>>>> 
>>>> "3) At the bestbits meeting, pre-IGF, there was broad support to have a more limited list, without private sector and government, for the purpose of developing strategies."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Joana,
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps it will be more difficult to strategize on an open list, or it might feel more difficult.  Reality is everything any reasonably large group discusses will leak.  Likely the only people excluded from the conversation will be other civil society, and at a time when this very small collection of CS should be looking to outreach.
>>>> 
>>>> We survived WSIS and a few years of IGF with open lists
>>> 
>>> As some may remember, we have had a closed list for some time already, but have been able to refrain from using it until now.  It's private at lists.bestbits.net and the list webpage at which you can subscribe is here:
>>> 
>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/private
>>> 
>>> I also would be happy to work in the open, but I also recognise that others feel differently and that there is some justification for those feelings.
>>> 
>>> Whilst your point is that "discussions will leak anyway", it's also true that people will strategise in closed cc groups anyway, if we don't provide them a closed list.
>>> 
>>> So In order to accommodate them, the use of the private list (and potentially other subject-specific closed lists) exists.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Senior Policy Officer
>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>> 
>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone
>>> 
>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
>>> 
>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>> 
>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m.
>>> 
>> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20131031/3b7fc9b6/attachment.sig>