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

[Parminder]

Avri

 

> Please do not be so condescending.

 

I am not. You said in your email that " i believe we are talking about what
is at best a personal foible, bad tactics, and an emotional email on one
participant's part."

 

The first line of the email under question makes it clear that it was a
email on behalf of a group, stating matters and opinions developed after due
deliberation. So, I am right to assume that it is possible that, in the
manner we all do in these times of a thousand emails, you either couldn't
read the original email, or could only devote passing attention to it.
Nothing more was intended. However, I apologise if you think it came off as
condescending. 

 

> 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.

 

Evidently I trust Chris Disspain more than you do :) 

 

> The Advisory Group is not a empowered public body and it was not

> elected by some group of constituents.  

 

You neither have to empowered or be elected to be a public body. Bureacrats
themselves form public offices and their formal collections public bodies,
don't they. 

 

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.  

 

You have refused to engage on the equivalence of the issue under examination
and much of journalism and CS activism today. Would you also accept such
privacy considerations in that case. Much of watchdog activity of media and
CS will collapse in that case. Meryem have also discussed how chatham rules
are for information sharing and not so much about privacy, as we speak in
terms of individual rights. As for netiquette, Net is a part of the rest of
the world, not a special case. Certainly not a special case to apply
regressive rules in terms of gains in pulbic accountability law and
practices which have been won over centuries. 

 

> 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.

 

Now that is harsh language for some people who struck their neck out to do
something for pulbic interest.

 

I don't think I can go into too much detail here to argue the public
interest importance of disclosing the instance of a group making explicit
connection between financial considerations and public policy agenda, except
to say that this is actually criminal in many countries to do so. 

 

Let me also comment on how you see chris's email as a simple reminder of the
fact of financial isseus with IGF. This is from your earleir email.

 

>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.

 

 

It isnt that simple. It must be remembered that the same qaurters who are
now trying to make the best of IGF's financial inadequacies joined up with
like-minded governments to support positions at the WSIS that either there
should be no separate WSIS follow-up structures, and if there are to be any,
they should imply no financial commitments (of UN like public money). So
well, this is how it works then. Speak against new public funding of
important public bodies, and then pay up some support, and then use that
support to push partisan agenda. If this would have happened at the national
levels at my or your country, this would be an unimaginably big scandel. I
think you are too easy on letting these people off...

 

> I would prefer to see the list working on civil society's issues and

> not on some bit of tantalizing fluff.

 

You don't think it is  a civil society issue ???

 

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: Sunday, June 10, 2007 5:50 PM

> To: Parminder

> Cc: Governance Governance Caucus

> Subject: Re: [governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

> 

> 

> 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.

> 

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070610/1d4724dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070610/1d4724dc/attachment.txt>