[governance] communicating with our peers
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Feb 6 00:01:10 EST 2008
>If you're just saying the civil society members
>don't report enough of what's being said, you're
>right. We don't.
Thats the whole thing, the entire point of the discussion and not a minor
post-script to the discussion. Can we know and try to understand why we
dont.
Please correct me if I am wrong but I think there was something in the IGC's
nomination process for MAG members that put some obligation on selected
members to keep in regular contact with the group. Not merely communicating
the process details (which are important, and most have never communicated
even that) but also real substantive details. Basically to consider the IGC
and the groups it connects to as their primary constituency (or at least one
of their primary constituencies).
Now that a two year term is over, and MAG may be renewed, can MAG members
who accepted to be nominated by the IGC get involved with the IGC about
assessing these two years and the role of IGC nominated MAG members and
related issues?
I think we should seek from all positions, including co-cordinators such
accountability extracting questions. Unlike governments and the private
sector, civil society has no direct and simple accountability mechanisms. A
lot of questions, some uncomfortable ones, therefore is a basic and
necessary part of accountability in public life.
Those who are too sensitive to any such public questioning and
accountabilities at all should in my opinion stay away from these public
roles (I say it matter-of-factly and with no judgment of people and their
choices and values).
Parminder
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:27 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers
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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list