[governance] communicating with our peers

[linda misek-falkoff]

Greetings:

Very interesting.

Accord from a *Respectful Interfaces* perspective, which looks to strengths
and weaknesses on network arcs comprising social linkages.

The following is, again, very - very - welcome and refreshing as regards
potentials for productivity via the longstanding key platform approach  for
international ICT from its beginnings:

*"(inter) connectivity*".

Let's hear more please and thank you,

With kudos and best wishes,

:) LDMF.
Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff

Individual online posting.
For I.D. Here: The *Respectful Interfaces* Programme of the Communications
Coordination Committee For the U.N.; CCC/UN Secretary, Board Member.
.

*Immediate Reference:  On 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:*

"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")." :

*Full text: *
On 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> wrote:
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080204/6ebc3999/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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