[governance] NetMundial and Indian CS: Discussing Transparency and Conflict of Interest

Mon Apr 21 03:46:00 EDT 2014

Thanks for making these points, which by the way could very well have been 
made without dragging in speculation on whether subi did or did not 
plagiarize for her dissertation.

While I agree about the points you made on transparency and full 
disclosure, these are best targeted at a discussion on the future 
appointment of chairs for multistakeholder events.

And perhaps some clarity and a proportionate response to such appointments 
based on whether the co chair of a particular event is a honorary 
figurehead or is supposed to play an active role in shaping the agenda and 
outcomes.

Thanks
Suresh

On 21 April 2014 12:28:31 pm Chinmayi Arun <chinmayiarun at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> I signed the Indian Civil Society
> letter<http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/popup/2014/4/Civil%20Society%20Letter.pdf>because
> I thought that a meeting as significant as NetMundial should be
> especially careful about the process it follows. Multi-stakeholder dialogue
> is and will always be an enterprise that will need to be handled with a
> great deal of care. If we seek to replace some inter-governmental processes
> with MS processes, surely we need to build the same safeguards into the
> multi-stakeholder mechanisms that exist in government functioning. It is
> therefore of the utmost importance that transparency and accountability be
> a part of multi stakeholder dialogue. I found it problematic that these did
> not feature in the appointments of the Chair, and considered an obligation
> to point this out. This is of course while maintaing my very high regard
> for all the people who worked so hard to put NetMundial together - it
> cannot have been easy to achieve so much so fast.
>
> I am sorry that the conversation intended to be about the process by which
> the Chairpersons were appointed has turned personal. It was not meant to.
> If it helps, had I been appointed a Chair for this conference by the same
> process, I would have considered that problematic too. The heart of this is
> that the process should have been consultative and transparent, regardless
> of who eventually gets appointed.
>
> From the exchanges that have followed the letter, the other question that I
> think is important and worth discussing in detail, is the question about
> what constitutes conflict of interest.  A wise colleague, Sunil Abraham,
> said last week that we need to have a conversation about what constitutes
> conflict of interest, and work at identifying the degree of transparency
> necessary from anyone who wishes to be a part of multi stakeholder decision
> making.
>
> Towards this end, I am going to begin with transparency about my own
> organisation, flagging all connections that ought to be of interest.  I
> will end with some thoughts about potential conflict of interest and the
> bare minimum transparency that will make multi stakeholder dialogue more
> comfortable for me. I hope that at least some of you will join me in
> thinking this through in a way that is useful to us all in the future.
>
> The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) is a research centre at
> National Law University, Delhi. Ours is a public university which gets a
> major part of its funds from Delhi state government. The Centre has
> received Google sponsored funding from Tides Foundation - we were given
> money for broad research areas concerning the Internet. CCG controls its
> hiring (subject to approval from the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the
> university), conclusions and research questions completely. We have no
> obligations at all to Google. Apart from a narrative report and accounting
> for the expenditure, we have few obligations to Tides. Since we have
> already received the grant, we are not dependent on either entity for
> ongoing financing. Neither Tides nor Google has ever attempted to influence
> our conclusions, and Google has taken our public criticisms of its policies
> and positions with very good grace.
>
> I am also on the Government of India's MAG, representing National Law
> University, Delhi, which is one of the academic stakeholders on the MAG.
> The departments of the government from which the university receives its
> funding are not on the MAG;  our funding comes from the Delhi state
> government, but it is the Indian Central government that is on the MAG, not
> any of the state governments. Additionally, the administrative heads of the
> university who liaise with the government in relation to funding are not on
> the MAG. I don't therefore believe that any conflict arises from this
> arrangement, but this is open for discussion.
>
> Also on the MAG, is Sunil Abraham, who heads the Centre for Internet and
> Society Bangalore, of which I am a fellow. Anybody who knows CIS well will
> have seen already that it embraces diversity of opinion within the
> organisation. My contract with CIS only discusses the research and writing
> that I will be required to do, and not the opinions that I hold. My online
> profile and my university email signature both mention that I am a CIS
> fellow so this is something that everyone was aware of well before I became
> a part of the MAG. Again, I would be happy to discuss this in detail if
> anyone sees a potential conflict of interest here.
>
> In general, if people are representing stakeholder groups in MS dialogue, I
> would expect them to be very forthcoming about any payments/ other benefits
> that they receive from a different stakeholder group, or any connections
> that they have with other stakeholders. Additionally, I think it also helps
> for people within the same stakeholder group to be transparent about their
> connections with each other. Civil society connections are inevitable since
> civil society organisations finds themselves sharing resources and
> mentoring other individuals and organisations. But transparency about this
> is certainly warranted.
>
> I hope that we can all take to being more open about these things. I
> understand that we draw different lines in relation to what we see as
> conflict of interest, and what we accept as ethical. But the only way to
> get on the same page is to talk about it openly.
>
> With my sincerest apologies for the direction in which our letter dragged
> this conversation, and my hopes that it is not too late to use it for a
> more useful conversation.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Chinmayi
>
> Chinmayi Arun
>
> Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law
> University, Delhi
>
> Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140421/c4401fe6/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