[governance] communicating with our peers
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Wed Feb 6 06:26:25 EST 2008
Parminder wrote:
>> If you're just saying the civil society members
>> don't report enough of what's being said, you're
>> right. We don't.
>
> That’s 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
> don’t.
Actually I am not sure if there has been any substantial issue that
hasn't been reported by any of us. (Remember, it is not just Adam and
me. We are about 6 if we include Wolfgang, the special adviser.) What I
have noticed is that very often there is not much of a response from the
caucus. For example, in early january I sent a long email that listed
all the issues under discussion in the MAG including my own opinion in
cases where I thought it might matter. From what I remember, Jeremy was
the only one who took up at least one of the issues.
Such a weak feedback is not very encouraging, is it?
jeanette
>
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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