[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

My communications with the chair indicate that he is doing it because that is the ECOSOC way (my words) and that because he wants to give all stakeholders a chance to discuss whether it should be open of not.  To be fair to the chair, he is taking a safe and possibility even reasonable route in making this determination.  I just think that this bit of safe and reasonable action is risky and a bad idea. 

In terms of who may have asked the chair to keep it closed, if indeed someone did, I am not sure that it matters if they did so confidentially.  In fact, if indeed there are those who asked for this, having the discussions might be a good thing as it will give us a chance to learn who it is that does not support transparency as the default condition.

As for a joint letter.  i might agree to be part of one, but only as long as it had _no_ content related to how other stakeholder groups did their choosing.  The fact that it might be linked in any way, by anyone, at anytime, to anti-subsidiarity of stakeholder group decisions, would keep me from signing on to a joint letter.  While I beleive all stakeholder groups should be as open as can be, it is up to them whether they are or not.  My beliefs about their operations are irrelevant.

I should also indicate that if the group decides not be open, or to use Chatham House rule, I will comply with the rule.  I will argue against it, but will adhere to it.

avri


On 5 May 2013, at 04:38, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On May 4, 2013, at 6:39 PM, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at consensus.pro> wrote:
>>> I hope you're successful, Avri - and that this is something that the civil
>>> society participants can unanimously support. I will see if some of the
>>> other stakeholder groups will support it too.!
>> 
>> 
>> I think that a statement from IGC on this could gain consensus.
>> 
>> This is one example of social justice that we could get behind.
>> 
>> It would be even better if we could get biz and T&A to sign on as well.
> 
> Before trying to assemble a joint letter about the closure of the meeting, it would probably be good to confirm where the demand from closure came from and what the rationale was.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> ____________________________________________________________


-------------- 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