[IGFmaglist] February meeting date
Patrick Ryan
patrickryan at google.com
Fri Jan 3 15:04:26 EST 2014
Markus,
Thank you for the follow-up. I'm also sending this on the separate Donor
list (hopefully we won't need to maintain two lists for long). I have
three main areas that we should work on in the next couple weeks so that
the MAG Consultation and the donors' meeting yield results. I'll also make
these contributions to the project that Subi is leading. The three things
are: *(1)* the donors meeting should be open consistent with global best
practices of many other organizations; *(2) *We would very much like the UN
to assign a senior resource to help us with the reform proposal and to
answer the open questions that we've provided, and start to work on it now,
before the meeting; and *(3) *We need a firm date for an announcement of
MAG members.
*First, on the question of the donors' meeting as open or closed*, although
there have been one or two people in the donors' group that expressed an
interest in having most or some of the meeting closed, I have never heard
or understood the rationale for that request. In fact, closing the donor's
meeting only to donors goes against all best practices that I know for both
public and private fundraising and is a direct affront to the transparency
principles that we should promote for the IGF. The topics that we discuss
at the donors meetings have impact on the functioning of the IGF, including
things like budgets for civil society, for other travel and subsidies, etc.
For these and other reasons see no value, and considerable downside, in
excluding any of the stakeholders from the discussion only because they
have not yet donated money. And further, civil society or individuals
can't practically become donors at all as it stands, because there's no way
to accommodate small donations that an NGO may wish to contribute. So, I
believe strongly that the donors meeting should *not* be closed. This
practice may be new to the IGF, but it is well established practice in
other organizations, including large companies, NGOs, and government
agencies.
- *Large companies, *if they are traded on a public stock exchange,
publish regular updates on their finances available to the entire public,
with no distinction between investors or non-investors. They are required
to have a public shareholder meeting once per year. At the meeting the
company gives a high level overview of the finances, there are discussions
about any changes in focus, and discussions about key personnel C-Level
recruiting, executive pay, etc.
- *Non-profits of all kinds *have similar structures. For example, a
501(c)(3) non-profit in the USA must, by law, have a separate, independent
Board of Directors that assures that the mission and finances are in
alignment with the tax-exempt status of the organization and with its
mission. The Internet Society's Board of Trustees is a good model for
this.
- *Governments *in many cases have their own requirements. Thanks to
the Brown Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Act>, in the USA,
since 1953 all governmental public meetings are required to be open, and
there are penalties when officials hold certain kinds of meetings without
notifying and including the public.
- *University contexts *vary among private and public universities. In
my experience as a Department Chair, all of my meetings were open to all
faculty. When we discussed more sensitive curricular issues and sometimes
grades, those discussions are much more complicated to share with students.
So for those meetings we would designate a time for that discussion, and
even then, the students voted to have two representatives from their
leadership organization join (they were required to sign confidentiality
agreements).
My suggestion is that we figure out a way to decide the openness of the
donors meeting. And if any part of the meeting is going to be closed, the
topics that are to be discussed in the closed session must be disclosed.
It doesn't have to be details, but typical things that are moved to closed
sessions in the above contexts include things like pending litigation;
sensitive personnel topics (other than salary).
*Secondly,* but quickly, we need to establish whether or not UNDESA is
going to be assigning any resources to help work on reform issues, and if
so, to help us address some of the open issues. I've been using the same
document that I sent around in September to track that---please pitch in to
make it better! (Remember: I'm focusing on governance of the IGF in this
case, not the IGF program itself---which is important but being looked at
by others).
*Finally, *we need to request a final date for when the new MAG members
will be finalized. From my perspective, this date should be no later
than *January
15, 2014*. Anything later than that makes it very difficult for people to
plan on attending the first meeting, to arrange for funding, travel, and
accommodation. Last year's announcement came way too late for meaningful
engagement by the new MAG members and we were assured that this would not
be repeated. Time is short, however.
Sincerely,
Patrick
------
*patrick ryan *
public policy & gov't relations senior counsel, free expression and int'l
relations
patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Markus Kummer <kummer at isoc.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Let me wish a Happy New Year to you all - it promising to be a busy year
> and for the IGF it may well be a decisive year!
>
> While Chengetai is waiting for the final confirmation on the availability
> of meeting facilities for the February meeting, here are a few additional
> pieces of information.
>
> I seem to remember that originally we set aside 19-20 February for the
> Open Consultations/MAG meeting. Separately, we agreed in the donors'
> context to organise a donors' meeting back-to-back with the Open
> Consultations/MAG meeting. In the email Chengetai sent out he suggested
> having the donors' meeting on 19 February and the Open Consultations/MAG
> meeting on 20-21 February, assuming that it would accommodate those who
> also want to attend the CSTD WG on Enhanced Cooperation.
>
> Patrick now asks whether the donors' meeting would also be open to others.
> As we started discussing IGF funding in the MAG context, there would be
> some merit in having a public discussion on these issues, but this is a
> question that would need to be decided by the donors. Based on past
> experience however I anticipate that the donors (i.e. contributors to the
> IGF Trust Fund) would like to have some time to be among themselves.
>
> Having said that, nothing stops us having a public segment as part of the
> donors' meeting. We could start with a discussion open to all interested
> participants, explain the state of funding, the budget and discuss enhanced
> fundraising efforts etc. and finished the day with a closed donors' meeting
> to see if there are issues they would like to discuss among themselves.
>
> As the week starts with a WSIS+10 meeting on 17-18 February, the question
> remains what is more convenient, that is to start or to finish with a
> donors'/funding meeting. I assume that many of you (but not all) plan to
> attend both WSIS+10 and CSTD WGEC.
>
> We have two options:
>
> A
> 19 February: IGF Funding/donors' meeting
> 20-21 February: Open Consultations/ MAG meeting
>
> or
>
> B
> 19-20 February: Open Consultations/ MAG meeting
> 21 February: IGF Funding/donors' meeting
>
> Looking at the two options from the perspective of the flow of the
> meetings, it would make more sense to start with the substantive agenda and
> then move to the equally important funding issue (Option B). However, I
> understand that depending on personal travel plans Option A might be more
> convenient.
>
> We could send out a doodle poll to check the preferences.
>
> Best regards
> Markus
>
> On Jan 2, 2014, at 11:50 PM, Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Chengetai,
> >
> > In your note to the donor's list on December 20th, you also mentioned a
> donor's meeting happening on 19 February. If so, will this meeting on the
> 19th also be open to participants from the MAG who may be interested in
> joining the discussion?
> >
> > Patrick
> >
> > ------
> > patrick ryan
> > public policy & gov't relations senior counsel, free expression and
> int'l relations
> > patrickryan at google.com | +1.512.751.5346
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Shahram Soboutipour <
> shahram at soboutipour.com> wrote:
> > Dear Chengetai
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy new year to you and all the team, I wish you a very successful
> 2014, and also for IGF, since it seems it is going to be a critical year
> for IGF.
> >
> > I would also appreciate if you let us know the schedules as soon as
> determined because we need preparations and especially Visa is always a
> problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Shahram Soboutipour | Independent IT Business Consultant
> >
> > | tel: +98 913 141 6626
> >
> > | fax: +98 21 8978 7875
> >
> > email: shahram at soboutipour.com | soboutipour at gmail.com
> >
> > Skype | GoogleTalk | facebook | LinkedIn | twitter
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf
> Of Chengetai Masango
> > Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2014 5:30 PM
> > To: Veronica Cretu
> > Cc: MAG List IGF
> > Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] February meeting date
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > Happy New Year to you all.
> >
> >
> >
> > We will get confirmation soon from UNOG conference services. The
> prospective dates are still 20-21 February.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Chengetai
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2 Jan, 2014, at 14:01, Veronica Cretu <veronicacretu at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > A very happy and prosperous 2014 everyone!
> >
> >
> >
> > Wishing you all the very best in this year - and best of luck in all
> your initiatives and projects!!!
> >
> >
> >
> > Vlada, thanks for asking and hope to have the details soon both on new
> MAG (as pointed out by Raul) and on the MAG meeting in February!
> >
> >
> >
> > A great year ahead to all of us!
> >
> >
> >
> > As ever,
> >
> > Veronica
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Vladimir Radunovic <
> vladar at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Chengetai, Markus,
> >
> > have we confirmed the MAG meeting for 19-20 February in Geneva or it is
> > still tentative?
> >
> > Best!
> >
> > Vlada
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ***
> > Upcoming online courses at Diplo:
> > Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) l
> > Humanitarian Diplomacy l Capacity Development l Multilateral Diplomacy l
> > Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources l
> > Complete Catalogue of Online Courses: http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses
> > ***
> >
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> >
> > Vladimir Radunovic
> > Internet Governance and E-diplomacy
> > DiploFoundation
> > email: vladar at diplomacy.edu
> > web: www.diplomacy.edu
> > twitter: @vradunovic
> >
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Veronica Cretu
> >
> >
> > President, Open Government Institute
> > Republic of Moldova - www.cmb.md
> >
> >
> >
> > Member of the Steering Committee,
> >
> > Open Government Partnership (OGP);
> >
> > http://www.opengovpartnership.org/governance-staff-donors
> >
> >
> >
> > Member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group
> >
> > To the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)
> >
> > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/
> >
> >
> >
> > Member of the Nominating Committee of ICANN
> >
> > (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbering)
> >
> > www.icann.org
> >
> >
> > Email: veronicacretu at gmail.com and/or veronica at cretu.md
> > Skype: veronicacretu
> > Phone: 373 067435000
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Igfmaglist mailing list
> > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> > http://mail.intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20140103/eb25689a/attachment.htm>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list