Secret vs CS list (was Re: process Re: [bestbits] [Meeting Report]: friday meeting with fadi et all)

[Daniel Pimienta]

I am/was not in Bali and just reading from that list I got the (maybe 
wrong) message that it was considered
to open a list reserved to Civil Society to allow that stakeholder 
group to elaborate strategies without interference
of the other stakeholkder groups but many feel that this is a bad 
idea because "secret lists" are not good and
anyway information will leak anyway.

If this is not the case please clarify for those who does not hold 
the implicit context information owned by the meeting attendees only,
and sorry for the misunderstanding.

If that is the case I (who have suggested to create such a list some 
weeks ago in the governance list) find totally inapropriate to
qualify of "secret" a list defined to serve exclusively the CS group 
and allow to elaborate strategies within CS prior to expose it
to the multistakeholder arena.

The question of leaking is totally irrelevant in my opinion. Civil 
society is driven by a transparency concept and I remember many
face to face CS caucus meetings which were "infiltrated"  by non CS 
persons during the WSIS process.

What is at stake is the non interference in the CS debate of those 
intruders not the fact that they can listen to our debates.
============

And by the way, I am a CS actor with a single hat, I did was in Baku 
(in a side event) and felt afterwards very strange to discover
months later the existence of Bestbit (meeting and lists) of which I 
was not invited and not aware of.
So I do not like neither secret processes and I wish Bestbit would 
have been informed in IGF main list so I could
have participated from the beginning.

If a CS exclusive IGF list is decided it shall advertise also, 
without secret, in the multi-stakeholder list.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.