[governance] communicating with our peers

Wed Feb 6 09:01:32 EST 2008

>I agree the lack of response from the caucus isn't helpful.

Yes, I agree lack of response from the list doesnt help at all. But still
basic commitments and responsibilities have to be kept up. And I am worried
about the activity levels of this list, and seeking engagement of other
members to see if anything can/ needs to be done about it. 

>The consultation is now less than 3 weeks away. 
>Are we prepared? There was a very useful thread in November/December.

No, we arent prepared. The list is not responding. And I have tried a lot.
Yes, Adam you first proposed we start off in Nov/ Dec itself, but I/we
thought people respond better  a little closer to the event. And now I have
been to trying to get members engaged with more than a month to go. So the
response level has not to do with the time we started the process.

But good you raised the issue. Gaps in co-cordinators activities need to be
brought up. Not everything can be perfect, and not everything can be
explained away, but as long as there are questiones being asked one gets
reminded to ones accountabilities. 

>>Actually I am not sure if there has been any 
>>substantial issue that hasn't been reported by 
>>any of us.

<That's true.  Except the great leak, which I 
>personally wouldn't have reported.

Adam, I picked from your email that said, yes, we CS members do not report
enough. There is this impression among many members and this has been
discussed on this list a few times. And I dont know what all went on the
MAG list and closed deliberations to be able to speak about what was not
reported.

At least at face to face closed meeting of MAG some important issues get
raised and discussed - we never had a summary report (within chatham rules)
before the official summary reports started coming out. 

And I didnt understand why would you 'personally' have not reported (even
without ascriptions) the issues that become the great leak. Is the threat of
withdrawal of financial support by one of the most important groups in MAG/
IGF in connection with whether some agenda will or will not be taken up not
a big issue enough to report - whatever be ones personal viewpoint about it.

I dont now many other issues - but I did raise the issue of how public and
community finance models disappeared from Access agenda - which should have
disturbed a lot of people who keep telling us that CIRs is not an issue but
access is - and nobody told me what happened inside the MAG that the issue
was taken off..... There must be many such issues I dont even know of...but
the significance and nature of few of these is enough to allow one to make a
general impression of non-reporting of substantial issues.

And Jeanette, yes your email of early January was an important one to engage
members of issues being taken up by the MAG. I had started the thread and
didnt want to come in with too much substantive stuff till other members
came in. A bit later I did abstract some of the issues pointed out in your
email and reposted them to try and get members to engage. So that problem
remains. 

Parminder 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 6:50 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann; Parminder
Cc: 'Carlos Afonso'
Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers

At 11:26 AM +0000 2/6/08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>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.
>>
>>That¹s 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
>>don¹t.
>
>Actually I am not sure if there has been any 
>substantial issue that hasn't been reported by 
>any of us.

That's true.  Except the great leak, which I 
personally wouldn't have reported, at the time I 
felt as bound by normal netiquette we expect of 
private lists as much as any chatham house rule.

But I think some more frequent reporting could be 
helpful. Even if it's just to say that nothing's 
happening.  The MAG list is not busy, about 1400 
messages since May 2006. Last 6 months:  44 in 
August, 112 September, 164 October, 136 November, 
40 December, 39 January. During those 6 months 
there was one Geneva consultation and the Rio 
meeting, speaker discussions etc. Inevitable "me 
toos" and off topic stuff included of course.

This document from the time names were put 
forward might be helpful 
<http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html> 
See criteria.

We weren't all or only nominated by the caucus, names the IGC put forward
were:

Adam Peake
Chun Eunghwi
Divina Frau-Meigs
Gemma Brice (Ken) Lohento
Gustavo Gindre Monteiro Soares
Jeanette Hofmann
Mawaki Chango
Milton Mueller
Parminder Jeet Singh
Paul Byron Wilson
Qusai AlShatti
Rikke Frank Joergensen
Robert Guerra
Robin D. Gross
William Drake

From that list Adam Peake, Ken Lohento, Jeanette 
Hofmann, Qusai AlShatti, Robin Gross became MAG 
members, along with Titilayo Akinsanmi and  Erick 
Iriarte and chair's special advisors, (Nitin) 
Wolfgang Kleinwächter and Jovan Kurbalija, and 
(Brazil) Carlos Afonso. (hope I'm not missing 
anyone!)

>(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?

I agree the lack of response from the caucus isn't helpful.

The consultation is now less than 3 weeks away. 
Are we prepared? There was a very useful thread 
in November/December.

Adam

>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

____________________________________________________________
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