MAG operating under the Chatham house rule? Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Break the Chatham house rule? Who said the MAG was operating under  
the Chatham house rule? From the Chatham house website:
"The Chatham House Rule reads as follows:
"When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House  
Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but  
neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that  
of any other participant, may be revealed"."

The MAG is not operating under the Chatham house rule. It's rather  
operating under the rule of silence. How it comes that such an  
important exchange as the one forwarded by Guru has not even been  
evoked by any MAG member, and specially by the CS members of the MAG?

Moreover, the Chatham house rule shouldn't be re-interpreted:
(still from the Chatham house website)
"Q. What are the benefits of using the Rule?
A. It allows people to speak as individuals, and to express views  
that may not be those of their organizations, and therefore it  
encourages free discussion. People usually feel more relaxed if they  
don't have to worry about their reputation or the implications if  
they are publicly quoted."

So the Chatham house rule is not meant to hide to the public  
organizations' or coalitions' positions expressed by their  
representatives, as is the current case. It is normally meant to  
protect those organizations' representatives from their  
organizations, when they want to speak freely as individuals, not  
necessarily in accordance with their organizations' positions.

Thus, I hardly see how the Chatham house rule could be evoked here.  
Apart from the fact that, as others already commented, this rule  
would have applied to participants to the meetings, not to external  
people.

BTW, what are the MAG rules, if any...

Meryem

Le 9 juin 07 à 17:08, Jeanette Hofmann a écrit :

> Actually I wasn't blaming Guru. I was responding to Parminder who,  
> if I understood him correctly, said that I he found it justified to  
> break the Chatham house rule.
> jeanette
>
> Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> ). And as IGC co-coordinator even informal rules of closed  
>>>> interactions
>>>> seemed more important than they need to against imperatives of  
>>>> public
>>>> interest disclosures, which in the present case I think are  
>>>> overwhelming...
>>>
>>> I am not sure I correctly interpret what you said in that  
>>> sentence above. If you meant to say that in this case public  
>>> disclosure is more important than respecting the chatham house  
>>> rule, then I would like to object.
>> 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.
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

____________________________________________________________
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:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance