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

Avri Doria avri at psg.com
Sun Jun 10 08:19:31 EDT 2007

On 10 jun 2007, at 12.18, Parminder wrote:

> I am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its  
> context
> and implications.

Please do not be so condescending.

> "A number of advisory group members met tonight to discuss today's  
> meeting
> and I am sending this to you and the list to express our concerns."
> And throughout afterwards a collective "we" and "our" is used.

It really does not matter what someone says using a royal we. It is a  
communication by one person unless others have explicitly signed on  
or explicitly endorsed the statement.

>  it represents the consider view of a
> like-minded group within the MAG, and everything about the mail  
> suggests
> that Chris was authorized to write this email on the behalf of the  
> group, in
> an almost formal manner, to the IGF secretariat.

That is, as far as i can tell an accusation without basis.   
Fortunately you do not name the members of the conspiratorial cabal.

>   So, I will like you to explain to me why
> MAG's working should not be treated differently than that of any other
> public body.

The Advisory Group is not a empowered public body and it was not  
elected by some group of constituents.  It is a group of advisors  
serving at the pleasure of the UNSG and his advisor, the Chair.   
Their email list is a closed list.  Forwarding messages off of a  
closed list is a breach of netiquette.  As I argued, that privacy  
should be respected except in the case of a crime or an impending  
crime - and this just does not rise to that level.  As I mentioned I  
personally prefer open lists, but I must respect the view that others  
have not opened up their lists.  If people participate in a list with  
the assumption of privacy, then we all have something to gain by  
protecting that privacy.

Sure, this is not illegal and muckrackers have always had the  
privilege of digging though the muck to find some titillating tidbit  
to use in furthering their agendas.  If you think this particular  
conspiracy theory is going to further CS's goals and agenda, whatever  
they might be, then so be it.    Personally, i think it is as  
tactically broken as the original email was.

I would prefer to see the list working on civil society's issues and  
not on some bit of tantalizing fluff.


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