[governance] communicating with our peers

[Parminder]

>And I think its good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual
>brains instead of simply operating on the assumption that only a request
>for a maximum of openness and transparency is compatible with an
>uncompromising civil society position.
>jeanette

No, I don't think a simple open-everything-up is the right and necessary
thing to do from CS point of view. Though, generally, CS is almost always
seen as promoting more transparency than gov or private sector members.  

I know that it can compromise the decision-making capacity of a very
politically diverse group if every word that is uttered is open to everyone
to know and scrutinize. Members then tend to play to the gallery, that is,
to the narrow interpretation of the recognized positions of their
constituencies. This makes even starting to work towards compromise
positions difficult. And of course, it is unethical to disclose discussions
about specific individuals like when considering people for speaking slots. 

However, there are still a couple of issues here.

(1) most important of these is that the above cannot be taken as a complete
excuse for no movement towards openness at all. Half-way possibilities like
those being instituted now on UN SG's instructions were needed to be
explored. And one would expect CS members to be most active in this, because
whatever be practical necessities lack of transparency is supposed to worry
them most. Now, as I have said a few time in my earlier emails is that CS
MAG members never appeared very enthusiastic in exploring and pushing for
these transparency measures.  

(2) secondly, the main reason against complete transparency (apart from
discussions about individuals, which no one is asking for to be made public)
is its effect on decision making capability of a group. But MAG hardly takes
any decision, and you have often said that you don't see it as a decision
making body. So maybe then there never was anything to lose with some
transparency. 

Parminder 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] 
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 6:03 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
Cc: Adam Peake
Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers




> In continuation of the email on CS activity inside MAG, what worries me is
> that this has happened without any significant (or any at all) role of the
> CS members in the MAG. At least I do not know of it, and will be very
happy
> to be proved wrong. 
> 
> It has happened almost entirely due to UN SG's instructions. And we are so
> keen on calling UN names and celebrating the virtues of CS. Why weren't
the
> CS group so keen active and aggressive in pushing for this change. In
fact,
> I remember during September face to face consultations China, yes, China,
> wanted these meetings to be open to observers.  And CS doesn't seem to
have
> any views on it. In fact I sometime hear views more in favor of what would
> amount to less transparency. 

Comparing civil society and Chinese positions in the MAG beats really 
everything!
A few governments did indeed opt for a complete opening of the MAG. My 
comment (if I still count as civil society in your eyes) on this 
proposal was that a complete blurring of the MAG with its environment 
can be regarded as an elegant way of killing it altogether. It is not by 
accident that MAG members like China who are most opposed to the idea of 
a multi-stakeholder group were also the ones most eager to open it up 
without any reservation. If I remember correctly, Russia took the same 
stance as China in that meeting.

What China and Russia both saw is that transparency and openness involve 
trade-offs. It can enhance the legitimacy of an organization but it can 
also render it dysfunctional. Such decisions need care. And I think its 
good if the cs members in the MAG use their individual brains instead of 
simply operating on the assumption that only a request for a maximum of 
openness and transparency is compatible with an uncompromising civil 
society position.
jeanette
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au] 
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 7:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] communicating with our peers
> 
> This has just appeared on the IGF's front page (unless it was there  
> before and I missed it):
> 
> "Digests of the discussion held within the Advisory Group are  
> available on the Forum Section on a regular basis."  I like it how  
> this is stated as if it had always been the case, whereas in fact it  
> is now 2008 and the Advisory Group was established in 2006.
> 
> Anyway, the upshot is that the selection of comments on rotation that  
> were posted last month are intended as the first of a series.  This is  
> good, except for the fact that  most of the critical decisions on the  
> IGF's structure and processes have already been made, and will be much  
> more difficult to change now than if we had had a window into the  
> MAG's veiled world two years ago.
> 


____________________________________________________________
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