[governance] CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation

[joy]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Thanks for the update Avri.
I'd also call for the meeting to be open and would want to have the
opportunity to discuss any rationale to the contrary.
I am not interested in requests for publication of the other
stakeholders' selection processes.

Joy


On 6/05/2013 1:48 a.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRhtoKAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqB5gH/RJAhWOZkDMhs6X0x/5kLpfU
5aRjDe8ajRaaQA7mbbHfZB7UfwbvAMNTaa/NFrxjMjIZyyQD60SD3ic8nNfsRfsO
TqX6GALjAde6uK0gH5CibC4yREqEVw8ZqGJSEH85FzAAqZuj9lB/NedJoCSj78K2
IpDiYKvEdOW+htmyKj4Sb53SvkJ0Cs6jfJJMg90RkL26IflED0SPrTeqX0edds7U
w6Y0QE7qsFuAhywCDCO1bP8m3Agf4atQmeIzPnjKWA35hrfUo5SE22rjGvH56fUO
sUzzIBQc2RgjPFO2Sy9XDPeO8+n9+n+LejxUkONsyssSgahZC8ME96ZTvlo8fEw=
=UAjF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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