[governance] communicating with our peers

[Carlos Afonso]

Adam, as to the SKS proposal (which appeared in the mag list as signed 
by three people, not five), you are right, I did not check beforehand, 
it is posted in the public forum. Good to know, and I should check it 
more regularly.

As to the rules, yes, I am not talking about verbatim transcripts with 
all the "gory" details, but to make sure the core of all discussions are 
made known to our peers. But we would be clearly naïve in thinking that 
linking of people to opinions and proposals in reporting the meetings is 
not happening, of course.

My main concern, however, is how civil society members of the MAG will 
handle this while making sure all relevant issues and, let us say, 
political alignments, are known to our peers as the IGF process goes 
forward.

BTW, I think Suresh did not understand my main point -- I do not want 
civil society to be a strict follower of these rules (I guess we do not 
believe in Snow White -- I am referring to the children's version...), 
but to do it in a way that keeps a reasonable balance of mutual 
confidence. To find this balance without generating conflict in delicate 
situations is an art we ought to handle.

Presently, I think mostly we, civil society, run little risk of breaking 
any rules, precisely because we generally are communicating poorly with 
our peers -- maybe a reason why several of us seem to be rotating around 
the same discussion spaces for years, rather than involving more people 
in order to be replaced by new (younger included) minds...

frt regards

--c.a.

Adam Peake wrote:
> Carlos, I don't understand...
> 
> Chatham house rule means you can use information from the meetings/list, 
> just that you shouldn't attribute it: "neither the identity nor the 
> affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be 
> revealed"
> 
> Are you saying you think govt and business go back and give verbatim 
> reports on who said what?
> 
> I don't share your concerns (if I'm right, and this is what your 
> concerned about).
> 
> I expect most people, and I'd guess govt more than others, sometimes say 
> "person X" said something, or more commonly, "civil society's view was 
> generally ... [whatever]" etc.  I expect identifying what the reporter 
> considers a stakeholder position is pretty common.
> 
> If you're just saying the civil society members don't report enough of 
> what's being said, you're right.  We don't.
> 
> The SKS proposal is posted on the IGF public forum, 
> <http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0> attributed to:
> 
> George Sadowsky
> John Klensin
> Matthew Shears
> Patrik Fältström
> Bill Graham
> 
> It's not a secret.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> At 11:44 AM -0200 2/4/08, Carlos Afonso 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
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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