No subject

Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 EST 2022

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Best wishes,

Chinmayi

Chinmayi Arun

Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law
University, Delhi

Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

--089e0149cad4a2b84f04f78804d4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">

Dear All,=C2=A0I signed the<a href=3D"http:=
//www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/4/Civil%20Society%20Letter.pdf">=
 Indian Civil Society letter</a> because I thought that a meeting as signif=
icant as NetMundial should be especially careful about the process it follo=
ws. Multi-stakeholder dialogue is and will always be an enterprise that wil=
l 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 govern=
ment functioning. It is therefore of the utmost importance that transparenc=
y and accountability be a part of multi stakeholder dialogue. I found it pr=
oblematic that these did not feature in the appointments of the Chair, and =
considered an obligation to point this out. This is of course while maintai=
ng my very high regard for all the people who worked so hard to put NetMund=
ial together - it cannot have been easy to achieve so much so fast.

I am sorry that the conversation intended to be about the pro=
cess by which the Chairpersons were appointed has turned personal. It was n=
ot 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 hear=
t of this is that the process should have been consultative and transparent=
, regardless of who eventually gets appointed.=C2=A0

From the exchanges that have followed the letter, the other q=
uestion that I think is important and worth discussing in detail, is the qu=
estion about what constitutes conflict of interest. =C2=A0A wise colleague,=
 Sunil Abraham, said last week that we need to have a conversation about wh=
at constitutes conflict of interest, and work at identifying the degree of =
transparency necessary from anyone who wishes to be a part of multi stakeho=
lder decision making.

Towards this end, I am going to begin with transparency about=
 my own organisation, flagging all connections that ought to be of interest=
. =C2=A0I 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.

The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) is a research c=
entre 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 mon=
ey for broad research areas concerning the Internet. CCG controls its hirin=
g (subject to approval from the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the univer=
sity), conclusions and research questions completely. We have no obligation=
s at all to Google. Apart from a narrative report and accounting for the ex=
penditure, we have few obligations to Tides. Since we have already received=
 the grant, we are not dependent on either entity for ongoing financing. Ne=
ither 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.

I am also on the Government of India's MAG, representing =
National Law University, Delhi, which is one of the academic stakeholders o=
n the MAG. The departments of the government from which the university rece=
ives its funding are not on the MAG; =C2=A0our funding comes from the Delhi=
 state government, but it is the Indian Central government that is on the M=
AG, not any of the state governments. Additionally, the administrative head=
s of the university who liaise with the government in relation to funding a=
re not on the MAG. I don't therefore believe that any conflict arises f=
rom this arrangement, but this is open for discussion.

Also on the MAG, is Sunil Abraham, who heads the Centre for I=
nternet and Society Bangalore, of which I am a fellow. Anybody who knows CI=
S well will have seen already that it embraces diversity of opinion within =
the organisation. My contract with CIS only discusses the research and writ=
ing that I will be required to do, and not the opinions that I hold. My onl=
ine 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 an=
yone sees a potential conflict of interest here.

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 an=
y connections that they have with other stakeholders. Additionally, I think=
 it also helps for people within the same stakeholder group to be transpare=
nt about their connections with each other. Civil society connections are i=
nevitable since civil society organisations finds themselves sharing resour=
ces and mentoring other individuals and organisations. But transparency abo=
ut this is certainly warranted.

I hope that we can all take to being more open about these th=
ings. 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 class=3D"">With my sincerest apologies for the direction in which our le=
tter dragged this conversation, and my hopes that it is not too late to use=
 it for a more useful conversation.</p><p class=3D"">Best wishes,</p><p cla=
ss=3D"">
Chinmayi</p><p class=3D"">Chinmayi Arun</p><p class=3D"">Research Director,=
 Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi</p><p =
class=3D"">

</p><p class=3D"">Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore</p></d=
iv>

--089e0149cad4a2b84f04f78804d4--