hi,

at the cost of getting vilified for supporting elitism or drinking koolaid, when working with companies and governments, sometimes the people are more liberal and more willing to work on compromise then their bosses.  if everything is open, they risk getting fired or in the case of some governments a lot worse.

If you want to work with people who have something to lose by being too open it is sometimes beneficial to the final result to give them the freedom of expression that Chatham house rules allow.

In this case Bill worked out a compromise that may allow us to achieve a more comprehensive review then might be achieved if every member of the panel had to put their job or head on the line with every unapproved statement they made.

a.

On 22 Jan 2010, at 19:25, Nuno Garcia wrote:

> Picking on Robin example, I too am in favour of a fully open
> discussion. One should be responsible enough to take charge of his
> views and of his words.
> 
> To help masquerade a discussion is to encourage and allow for
> nonsense, hidden agendas, corruption, and so on.
> 
> Just as I am against anonymous messages, I am againts the use of this Rule.
> 
> If one has an opinion, let it be heard. If it deserves criticism of
> others, one should take this criticism with dignity.
> 
> If one's opinion cannot stand the scrutiny of good sense and wisdom,
> then its better to keep it for oneself, allowing it to grow and mature
> until is time to be brought to light.
> 
> Overall de-responsabilisation is never a good choice.
> 
> My 2cents on this issue.
> 
> BR
> Nuno Garcia, Portugal
> 
> 2010/1/22 Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>:
>> I was against the Chatham Rule for IGF MAG and I'm against it in this public
>> governance institution.
>> Here is an example of why I think its a problem.   During my first year on
>> the MAG, I worked hard to try to get "human rights" as one of the
>> cross-cutting issues to address all themes.  A number of civil society
>> members on the MAG and a few govt folks also advocated for this and it was
>> about to pass.  Then, at the the last moment, a certain govt official on the
>> MAG (1 person representing a country with a tiny population) said "no" to
>> human rights as a cross-cutting issue and it was DEAD.   Under these Chatham
>> House Rules none of us can say what single country blocked the topic of
>> human rights from making it onto the IGF agenda.
>> The next year, I tried again to get human rights as a main
>> theme/cross-cutting issue.   But due to the slowness of the UN in
>> re-appointing the MAG, the meeting at which this decision was being made was
>> open and so Chatham Rules did not apply.  Again a number of civil society
>> actors weighed in for human rights to be prominent in the agenda.  But this
>> year a different country, China, objected during this open meeting, so human
>> rights was once again nixed from the prominent discussion topics.  But at
>> least we can say it is because China objected - there is some trail of
>> accountability.   Under Chatham rules, we can't say which small country
>> objected the year before, so there will be no accountability for that
>> government from the people who live there (or the rest of the world).  They
>> don't even know their govt just killed human rights in the agenda for global
>> governance, and apparently we've agreed to keep this dirty secret.  No.  Bad
>> idea.
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 22, 2010, at 2:10 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> Robin
>> Chatham doesn't make it secret, it just strips out the names of who said
>> what.  The content still comes out. Other SGs feel that's important to them
>> being able to participate (pertains mostly to inter-corporate squabbling)
>> and I don't think we could have gotten a consensus council statement without
>> it.  And that council statement does call for two way info flow with AC/SOs,
>> which was not in the staff proposal.  So less than perfect transparency, but
>> more than there'd have been otherwise.
>> Best,
>> Bill
>> On Jan 20, 2010, at 12:51 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for sending this draft council letter around.  It is very good except
>> I do not agree that the review groups should operate under Chatham House
>> Rules on confidentiality.  It would certainly be a step backward for a group
>> that is to assess the openness and transparency of ICANN to operate in this
>> secret fashion and contrary to ICANN's promises of openness and
>> transparency.  Everything else in the letter looks good however.
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 19, 2010, at 8:15 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> Hi
>> Please see the attached draft and let me know if you have any comments etc.
>> Otherwise I'll propose a motion tomorrow...
>> Thanks,
>> Bill
>> <Draft GNSO Council response to the draft proposal on the Affirmation
>> Reviews Requirements and Implementation Processes.pdf>
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: "Gomes, Chuck" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: January 19, 2010 4:58:20 PM GMT+01:00
>> To: "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]>, "GNSO Council
>> List" <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: RE: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
>> 
>> Please forward this to your SGs/Constituencies right away and request
>> feedback.  The Council will need to make a decision on whether to submit
>> the comments or some revised version of them in our 28 Jan meeting.  If
>> anyone wants to make a motion in that regard, motions are needed by
>> tomorrow, Wednesday, 20 January.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> 
>> From: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of William Drake
>> 
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:40 AM
>> 
>> To: GNSO Council List
>> 
>> Subject: [council] Draft Council letter on the ARR
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Attached please find the drafting team's proposed response to
>> 
>> the draft proposal on the Affirmation Reviews Requirements
>> 
>> and Implementation Processes, for discussion with our
>> 
>> respective SGs and in the Council.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>> 
>> 
>>