Draft Council letter on the ARR

[Robin Gross]

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" <cgomes at verisign.com>
>>>> Date: January 19, 2010 4:58:20 PM GMT+01:00
>>>> To: "William Drake" <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>, "GNSO
>>>> Council List" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> 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: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>>>>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] 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
>>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
>>> 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: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> 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: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100122/51e41755/attachment.html>