AW: [governance] outcomes of CSTD Bureau meeting

[Adam Peake]

>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.




Nitin /Markus still had some hope at the end of the Wednesday 
consultation that the SG's office would issue a press release about 
membership of the advisory group overnight.  Had that happened then 
the private advisory group meeting would have taken place as planned.

Thursday morning, no news from New York, Nitin had no option but to 
hold an open meeting. No inside pressure, Nitin simply said in the 
situation he had no right to hold a private meeting so called it 
open.  That's how the UN is in such situations.

Best I remember (Jeanette I think agrees, Ralf disagrees) the 
electronic sign boards in the Palais used to announce the days' 
schedule showed the meeting as Open.  The boards give details of all 
meetings going on that day (meeting name, room, status etc.)  The 
sign on the door of the meeting said open.  As soon as Nitin made the 
announcement in the meeting itself Avri sent a note to the governance 
list.

Not a matter of insiders and select few. Just circumstance.



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


It surly is poor way to succeed, costly too... But no one I spoke to 
in Geneva could think what the problem in New York might be.  It was 
unusual.

Adam



>  >>> 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

____________________________________________________________
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