The Principle of Transparency

Sat Jan 23 19:54:24 CET 2010

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 <ngarcia at NGARCIA.NET> 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 <avri at ltu.se>:
>> 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 <robin at ipjustice.org>:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>