AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting

[Milton Mueller]

Interesting report, Kieren, thanks for it. 
It is yet another example of how the lack of an institutionalized MAG
leads to a lack of fairness. Some people are told the meeting is closed,
others find out its open. The reason for opening it (to the select few
who happened to be in the know or who were hanging around that day) was
determined by some behind-the-scenes pressures. 

Surely we can all see that this is a poor way to proceed.

>>> kierenmccarthy at gmail.com 5/25/2007 7:20:52 PM >>>
Wrt to the two days of meetings after the open 23 May meeting.

I'm sure we'll figure out what happened over time but from my
perspective:
Nitin Desai was put under pressure from a number of governments over
the
issue and influence of the Advisory Group during the 23 May meeting.

He downplayed the influence the Group had (read it on the transcript);
this
lead to the possibility that the two days of (closed) Advisory Group
meetings planned afterwards might be open. I asked at the end of the
Wednesday meeting whether the meeting would be open - no one was sure.

So I turned up on the Thursday morning to see if I would be turned
away
and/or if I would be asked to leave if I had sat down.

Nitin then made it clear at the start of the meeting that it was an
open
meeting (although you wouldn't know that unless you were already in the
room
- and the room number required chasing down). There was an exchange
with
Janis Karklins over this because Janis wished to invite people in if
indeed
it was open.

Clearly something was happening behind the scenes. I don't know what it
was.
But I did think that the meeting themselves were the most interesting
of the
whole IGF process so far.



Kieren
(speaking as an individual)





-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 10:28 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ralf Bendrath
Subject: Re: AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting

>(on the informal MAG meeting)
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>>the meeting was called open in the morning and was described as an
open
>>meeting in the schedule at the Palais.  As soon as it was open it
was
>>open.
>Interestingly, it was and still is announced as "privee" on the boards
at
>the Palais.


Was it... my mistake.

Then that is a problem.  And govt and other's concerns you described 
were justified.

Adam



>____________________________________________________________
>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 

____________________________________________________________
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