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

Sun Jun 10 09:40:28 EDT 2007

Hi,

In the mAG email that touched off this debate, Chris Disspain said to
Markus, "I intend to raise these issues at the meeting in the morning but
thought it courteous to let you and the rest of the list know in advance."
I was unable to attend the Friday open meeting; could someone who did please
inform as to whether these issues were indeed raised en plein air and if so
how that discussion went?

Thanks,

Bill

On 6/10/07 12:39 PM, "mgurst at vcn.bc.ca" <mgurst at vcn.bc.ca> wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> I hadn't as yet read Guru's note or the attached emails from the MAG when
> I sent my original note, but having now read them and following the recent
> interactions it only reinforces my original point, which I think should be
> the issue for CS i.e. ensuring that there is public and transparent
> funding for public processes.
> 
> The note sent along only reveals what we all knew which is that in the
> absence of this, them's that pays the piper calls the tune.
> 
> Happening to know who the piper is in this particular instance is of
> tittilating interest only, I would suggest, but being again reminded of
> the larger issue is surely something of significant public value--Chatham
> House rules or no--if only to enlighten those of a more naive persuasion.
> 
> MG
> 
>> 
>> Avri
>> 
>>> 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 am not sure if you read the offending email, and reflected on its
>> context
>> and implications. The first sentence on the email is
>> 
>> "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. So the
>> email
>> is hardly a personal foible, 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.
>> 
>> So it is really not one of those poorly-considered remarks in a closed
>> meeting for which you (and Jeanette) think one should be protected. It
>> looks
>> like quite a formal letter, though within the proceedings of MAG, taking
>> up
>> the concern of a group of members, which have been formulated though some
>> amount of deliberation. Will you give same considerations as you give this
>> letter to public interest disclosures from your governments working. Say,
>> a
>> group of parliamentarians, writing a collective letter in the proceedings
>> of
>> a parliament committee, many of which work under chatham house rules in
>> the
>> matter of informal discussions. Pick up the newspaper, it is full of such
>> scoops from government's working.  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.
>> '
>> Both you and Jeanette have used some arguments (for examples your on
>> marital
>> fidelity) from the realm of private lives. Now, we need to make this
>> distinction clear - MAG is a public body, and its members are public
>> office
>> holders, even if some informal rules on disclosure of information apply to
>> some of its proceedings. Chatham house rules, as explained by Meryem, are
>> built to serve public interest imperatives, and are there to facilitate
>> sharing of information from activities of public bodies, rather than
>> necessarily blocking it.
>> 
>> Government officials will be glad to get the protections which we are
>> affording the so-called new age experiment in a new, CS driven, open, etc
>> etc form of global governance. But in most countries they have lost it
>> decades ago, and have learnt to live with it.
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Well :), not sure you really mean it. But if you do, then I will like to
>> say
>> that, you can have your private opinions, but this is what constitutes
>> public activism. Welcome to the world of democracy, transparency,
>> accountability, people's right to public information and civil society
>> activism.
>> 
>> Parminder
>> 
>> ________________________________________________
>> Parminder Jeet Singh
>> IT for Change, Bangalore
>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
>> Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
>> Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
>> www.ITforChange.net
>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 6:10 PM
>>> To: Jeremy Malcolm
>>> Cc: Governance Governance Caucus
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)
>>> 
>>> -- 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
>>> promises.
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> a.
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> !DSPAM:2676,466bd004285501450418039!
>> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
***********************************************************

____________________________________________________________
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