[governance] communicating with our peers

[Carlos Afonso]

Hi compas,

In one of the IGC meetings during the Rio IGF, I raised problems related 
to the so-called "Chatham House rules" in supposedly multistakeholder 
groups like the IGF MAG.

My reasoning is that we cannot expect from a business representative 
(who answers to his/her bosses in a company or business association) to 
keep quiet about the MAG when returning to base. Much less government 
representatives, who will have to report to their superiors -- after 
all, they are funded by their entities (companies or governments) to 
*represent* them there. Several of these representatives come to the MAG 
with carefully drafted strategies and proposals which they obviously do 
not create by themselves, rather they are a result of well informed work 
in their constituencies, who are kept up to date regarding everything 
which goes on within the MAG. Unless we, civil society people, believe 
in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this is the objective reality of 
groups like the MAG.

My point is that "Chatham House rules" in these cases are a figure of 
rethoric. What about civil society? Sadowsky, Klensin and Sears have 
just drafted a generally good proposal containing procedures for a "new 
MAG". At one point they suggest that "[M]AG members should be chosen on 
the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is 
different than "represent")." One comment I made in the list is to make 
sure this is evaluated by the interest groups themselves, not only their 
current MAG members -- and my view has been that we, civil society 
"reps", are very imperfect in this.

But, again, the SKS proposal has a basic vulnerability here: government 
and business members are chosen by criteria completely different than 
the one proposed by it. So, like in the case of Chatham rules (in which 
in practice we are the ones left to abide by it), civil society alone 
would be the one to try and be chosen on that kind of criteria. Funny, I 
would say, if not ridiculous.

On the other hand, we could not declare a Galilean revolt, say things 
turn differently, and decide to open up everything in real time so to 
speak. What are then the limits of a "proper" following of the "Chatham 
House rules" for us, as I believe the other two stakeholder groups have 
nearly none?

The SKS proposal made in the igf-members list is reproduced below. It 
was posted on Dec.20 (sorry for the delay) but it is still being 
discussed. In my view, as this list is the main means of communicating 
with our peers, I am not breaking the rules, whatever they really are in 
practice.

fraternal regards

--c.a.


========== SKS proposal =================

PROPOSAL:

Role of Chair:

- The Chair should be a neutral person designated by the UN 
Secretary-General

- The Chair should be appointed for the remainder of the mandate of the 
IGF - we believe that Nitin Desai should continue in this role

Host country representative (at the host country's discretion):

- A senior local host country representative could participate in the AG 
meetings and be the interface for logistics and protocol matters for the 
event

Number of AG members:

- 40, comprising, in the spirit of true multi-stakeholderism and equal 
representation, 10 from each stakeholder group (governments, business, 
civil society and technical community)

- Rotation in March, service through end February following year

- International organizations with relevance to IG issues are welcome as 
observers (subject to the approval of the Chair)

Advisers to the Chair:

- Maximum of 5 advisers selected by the Chair

- The Chair may wish to extend an invitation to a host country 
representative to be one of the five advisers

Rotation:

- Approximately one third of the AG members from each stakeholder group 
should rotate every year

- Each stakeholder group will be responsible for submitting the names of 
the outgoing and incoming Advisory Group members to the Chair for 
approval (the Chair may consult as he sees appropriate with regards to 
the proposed names). Stakeholder groups may provide more names than 
there are seats.  The Chair's decision is final.

- If an insufficient number of members have retired from the AG, the 
Chair may ask individuals to retire (in informal and private conversation)

Key guidelines for AG member selection:

- AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a 
community they connect to (which is different than "represent").

- Anyone who did not participate actively and conscientiously should not 
be renewed.  (Note that participation can include postings to the list, 
private communications with the Chair and the secretariat, attendance at 
meetings, both in Geneva and at IGF, and actual work in helping to 
facilitate the IGF, etc.).

- Quality of participation should count more than quantity of participation.

- The AG should be balanced in terms of, inter alia, stakeholders, 
geographic regions, gender, points of view, while noting that the 
competence/expertise of the group should not be diluted to achieve this 
balance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Other members of our community have participated in the discussions 
leading to this proposal, and are planning to post their specific 
comments regarding its content to the list.

We trust that this proposal is a positive contribution to the continued 
functioning and success of the Internet Governance Forum, and we look 
forward to your comments.  In addition, we look forward to continuing to 
work with you  and Chairman Desai to increase the productivity of future 
IGF interactions and events.

With our best regards,

George Sadowsky
John Klensin
Matthew Shears


____________________________________________________________
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