[Privsec] Defining transparency

[karen banks]

let me know what you think of this, edits, revisions etc..

it's a good start - and criteria we would be aiming to apply to IG 
mechanisms/institutions

karen

>Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:00:59 +0100 (CET)
>From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb at bertola.eu.org>
>To: wgig-discuss at wgig.org
>Subject: [wgig-discuss] Defining transparency
>
>All,
>
>while listening to the afternoon discussion, I have tried to prepare a
>list of possible criteria to describe better what we mean by transparent,
>accountable, democratic, incorporating my ideas as well as many points
>mentioned by others.
>
>I think that a list like this one could be included in our final report as
>best practices, if not requirements, for Internet Governance processes;
>so, if we all like the idea, we could take the attached draft as a
>starting point and (perhaps through a sub-group of volunteers in the next
>weeks) work on it to finalize it.
>
>Regards,
>--
>vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
>http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
>
>_______________________________________________
>wgig-discuss mailing list
>wgig-discuss at wgig.org
>http://wgig.org/mailman/listinfo/wgig-discuss_wgig.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transparency-criteria.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/pipermail/privsec/attachments/20050218/9491d2fd/transparency-criteria-0001.doc
-------------- next part --------------