[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Sat Jun 9 08:39:49 EDT 2007

-- somewhat an aside -

On 9 jun 2007, at 13.28, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

> If the Advisory Group has adopted the Chatham House rule, this can  
> hardly apply to Guru who is not a member of the Advisory Group.   
> Take whomever leaked the emails in the first place to task, if anyone.

this is one of those age old questions that has bugged me for a long  
time in a variety of venues - are we responsible for the promises  
others make?  are we responsible for helping others keep those  
promises and are we also guilty when we assist in breaking those  

the normal place it comes up is in married life and affairs.  is the  
3rd party, the lover outside marriage, responsible for their  
activities vis a vis the marriage oath?  true only one of them took  
the vow, but it take someone to help them break that vow.

likewise, if someone knows that a communication has been leaked from  
a confidential source do they have a responsibility for  maintaining  
that confidence?  it is not as if the person who leaked these  
emails,  thought they were so important they were willing to take the  
chance a spread the news themselves.  and for all we know, it was  
never meant to be leaked to the world, only shared with one intimate  
confidant, who shared it with another confidant, who then shared it  
with the world.

so yes, whoever leaked the confidential email is at fault.  but  
perhaps those who passed it on and tried to make a case out of it  
also bear responsibility.

btw, in this case, i believe we are talking about what is at best a  
personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one  
participant's part. i do not believe we are talking about some crime  
that brings us into the realm of whistle blowing.  true many of us,  
myself included, would prefer that all lists be open, but there are  
reasons that people close lists and if one is closed, it probably  
should be respected - except in the case of a crime or an impending  
crime - which is most definitely not the case in this case.

i think the most important ipoints that came out is that the IGF was  
an unfunded mandate, and that it is struggling for a financial  
footing.  and if in that struggle someone feels they can take try to  
take tactical advantage of it, it is good that the person responsible  
for the secretariat is able to tell them where to get off.


You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

More information about the Governance mailing list