[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)
Avri Doria
avri at psg.com
Sun Jun 10 10:10:11 EDT 2007
hi,
Not so far as I noticed.
a.
On 10 jun 2007, at 15.40, William Drake wrote:
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list