[governance] Preliminary List of Nominees for the 2013 MAG - REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

[parminder]

On Thursday 17 January 2013 03:10 PM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi Parminder
<snip>
>   I also find it ironic given the high standards of disclosure 
> demonstrated when you were telling the IGC to support the Indian 
> government's CIRP proposal without mentioning your role in it, and so 
> on. :-)

Interesting accusation. Now that you have made it, I hope you will not 
run away from pursuing it, and provide the sought clarifications.

(1) What do you mean by 'my role in the CIRP proposal' - what role you 
see I had in the CIRP proposal?

(2) What do you mean by 'without mentioning your role in it'

YOu know it pretty  well that ITfC presented its version of CIRP 
proposal first in dec 2010 during UN DESA consultation on EC, which were 
public, and our submission was also separately submitted to this elist, 
and had limited but harsh criticism from the likes of Adam. The second 
time ITfC's proposal was  publicly discussed was during the Rio meeting 
in Sept 2011, and the concerned paper we wrote also submitted to the 
IGC.  What better transparency do you expect. Of course, we advocate 
actively about all our IG and other proposals with all the concerned 
actors. That is what every advocacy organisation does, isnt it.  Now if 
India liked our proposal and submitted a (considerably) modified version 
of it as its own - where does 'disclosure' issue comes in. Can you think 
of an NGO adopting greater transparency. ITfC has always boldly stood up 
for whatever we believe in... it is always all out there, even at the 
risk of being unpopular.

While all the above was always very public, when a Daily Mail article 
made dark hints about CIRP proposal and the role of various actors in 
it, and I think McTim asked us to respond on this list - I wrote a 7-8 
pager with all the details, about what happened and how... Because we at 
ITfC do believe that such transparency and accountability is the very 
basis of whatever legitimacy civil society has... Every question that is 
publicly asked must be fully responded to. And we always do...

BTW, apart from answering the above two questions, can you also remind 
me when did I ask IGC to support the CIRP proposal? I of course often 
did try and expose the hypocrisy behind much of the opposition to the 
CIRP proposal, mainly in terms of the close engagement of many of the 
critics with a very similar structure at the OECD level doing similar 
work that CIRP was supposed to do.

And then there is the unfortunate 'look who is talking' aspect to all 
this... Michael earlier raised the issue of the deep and systematic 
nexus between US delegation and civil society at the WCIT meeting. I am 
not against one off strategic linkages between CS and govs, including 
being on official delegations, and preparing statements/ drafts for 
govs, in order to obtain outcomes that a set of civil society actors in 
any case believe in. However, what happened at WCIT was rather, as I 
said, systematic and deep, and for a big range of CS actors. And, well, 
there has been no reporting on how this was all managed by CS actors. 
Bill, you were coordinating CS statements (at the BestBits meeting) at 
the same time as you were sworn to protect US national interests. Or am 
I mistaken... You were also all along active on IGC list mouthing the 
exact US positions.... Even when Mike spoke about the CS and US 
delegation issue, even if you were sure about where you stood and being 
right and unsullied, like I gave CIRP related explanations so many times 
on this list - including now, maybe you also should have responded with 
something (Avri did make a response).

parminder


>
> Games aside, I remain curious about your insistence the nomcom spend 
> time on an extra procedure that the Secretariat has made clear is 
> unnecessary, particularly when the discussion here was about the tight 
> time frame and urgent need to complete the process.   What purpose 
> would it serve?  I don't really care much either way and would of 
> course roll with whatever IGC members have consensus on, but it seems 
> like silly bureaucracy to me.  [Disclaimer: I am on the MAG, nominated 
> by IGC and APC]
>
> Cheers
>
> Bill
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130118/ce1c33e3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t