[governance] How to address the cooptation problem? (was Re: Breaking my silence... )

[Suresh Ramasubramanian]

For a change, we appear to agree here. Quoting my reply to chinmayi -

-----

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.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 2:46 PM
> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Subject: Re: [governance] How to address the cooptation problem? (was Re:
> Breaking my silence... )
> 
> Am Mon, 21 Apr 2014 06:22:43 +0530
> schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>:
> 
> > But in this case - especially during rather than before netmundial, as
> > Ian seems to say, the chair or co chairs role is purely that of a
> > figurehead.  I don't see any rhyme or reason in pursuing this further.
> 
> I don't think that at the current point in time there is any reliable
basis
> for doing more than guessing in regard to how much formal or informal
> influence the chair and co chairs will have on the eventual NETmundial
> outcome document. What is known is that they were given the opportunity to
> make changes to the draft outcome document before it entered the current
> public comments phase. This information is in my view not very consistent
> with relying on a belief that going forward "the chair or co chairs role
is
> purely that of a figurehead."
> 
> That said, I thought that I had made clear that I wanted to talk not about
> "this case", but about "how this type of situation can be dealt with in
the
> future, should it arise again."
> 
> It may well be too late to find a good solution to the problem in this
case,
> and that could end up severely diminishing the credibility of NETmundial
as a
> whole at least in the eyes of those who take this kind of issue seriously.
> But going forward, for the future, it is definitely not too late to think
> about what a good solution to this kind of problem will look like.
> 
> Greetings,
> Norbert
> 
> > > On 21-Apr-2014, at 3:26, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:
> > >
> > > (crossposting trimmed)
> > >
> > > Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> However, if you remember the circumstances, IGC had been reduced to
> > >> one co-ordinator who was about to retire, and this list was at its
> > >> divisive best on any matter, be it policy on process. I would
> > >> personally have supported a diplomatically worded letter if it had
> > >> been discussed and agreed to, and so would many others. I am sorry
> > >> that did not happen.
> > >
> > > I think that the bigger question is how this type of situation can
> > > be dealt with in the future, should it arise again.
> > >
> > > I mean, if the type of multistakeholderism in which stakeholder
> > > category representatives have some role is there to stay, and there
> > > is any kind of power or significance attached, of course there will
> > > again and again be attempts to introduce coopted persons as civil
> > > society spokespersons.
> > >
> > > And if no good way of addressing this problem is found, there will
> > > consequently again and again be accusations, some percentage of
> > > which will in fact be unfounded, with some people getting caught
> > > between the lines of such conflicts through little fault of their
> > > own.
> > >
> > > I don't think it realistic to expect IGC to be able to agree on
> > > anything in this regard, but at least we could discuss what a (not
> > > formally IGC based, to be implemented by some kind of alliance of
> > > the willing) solution might look like.
> > >
> > > For example, I'm pretty sure that some kind of transparency
> > > principles / commitments will necessarily have to be part of such a
> > > solution.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > > Norbert
> 



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