Greetings from Santa Cruz, CA: I must say that the principle of transparency seems to me to be a core reason for this stakeholder group to exist. I sincerely believe that any compromise on transparency would significantly impair the effectiveness of our efforts. I say this as a realist who is much more concerned with outcomes than dogma. I believe that we must live by what we demand from others in order to be effective. Sincerely, ---- Patrick Reilly Sent from my iPhone On Jan 23, 2010, at 10:22, Nuno Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Avri, without questioning your good and experienced judgement (I > do recognize that I'm little more than a wannabe compared to you all, > and still trying to learn my way around here), I think your > affirmation can also be understood as "everyone has something to hide, > so let's all paly along and pretend we are doing the right thing". > Even if the outcome is really the right thing (do goals justify the > means?). I thought these diplomatic manouevers were supposed to be > played in the backstage, right? > > Transparency is a value, and values, if sound and ethically born, must > never be sacrificed. I say it before coming forth to support > transcriptions. > > Maybe I don't belong in this community after all, and again maybe > that's why I should stay. > > Best regards to all, > > Nuno Garcia > > 2010/1/23 Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>: >> 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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >