Re: Notes of meeting of the Multistakeholder Forum‏

From: Sruti Jughdharree <saisruti1501_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 18:40:37 +0400

Hello SM, Ish,

I personally believe that it is incorrect to hide whatever has been
discussed at the meeting of the multistakeholder forum. I totally
understand Shelly's anger and disappointment towards this matter. As the
one leading the mailing list of the MIU, she, together with all the
participants in this mailing list have agreed for you two to be the
representatives of the MIU at the meeting of the multistakeholder forum.

Why did Ish remain quiet when the government officials described the
mailing list as facebook? Did either of you explain to the government
officials the difference between facebook and the mailing list? I believe
that we should send women to represent us in future as they will probably
not be afraid of speaking up when government officials request them to be
quiet.

Regards,
R.J


On 14 June 2015 at 17:58, Shelly Hermia Bhujun <shelly_hermia_at_hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Hello Ish,
>
> >It was said that if MIU has nominated us to represent them, we can
> decide for them and we are not obliged to share the happenings with them.
>
> You were selected to represent us and sharing the notes of meeting and what has been discussed during any meeting you attend is a must especially if you represent the Mauritius Internet Users. I thought it was clear enough. Isn't the permanent secretary of the Ministry of Technology, Censorship and Innovation that the mails and comment shared on this mailing list can be accessed through a public archive? This is not the first Stakeholder meeting. I would also like to highlight that i find this particular line disturbing "There was a comment by someone that when he goes back to his association he doesn't share all the happenings but just a few lines in general because the people might not be interested with every detail." In case they don't understand simple English- I believe it was clear that members of the Mauritius Internet Users sent them mails requesting for the previous notes of meeting because they were indeed interested!
>
> Please inform me if you have any difficulties to find these emails in the public archive. I would like to make it clear that i am talking about emails and not Facebook messages.
>
> Why should i even send representatives if they are supposed to stay quiet and act like dolls? The Mauritius Internet Users representatives do not attend lectures but engage in discussions! I strictly object to this kind of attitude!
>
> >There was also a comment that we're doing 'Facebook' with the discussions. SM strongly objected and clarified we are not on Facebook. I stayed quiet. I found it futile to argue with people who do not regard transparency & accountability as important and call emails as Facebook.
>
> This is surprising especially coming from Government Officials who are deciding about Internet matters which affects the country. Don't Government Officials know the difference between a mailing list and a social network like Facebook? Maybe this is why Government Officials and the ICT require foreign expertise.
>
> It is important for people who organize any meeting to send the notes of meeting to all those who made an effort to attend it. The notes of meeting should be emailed on the same day or not more than a week later. What guarantees us that they are even taking this meeting seriously? The representatives are not paid to attend those meeting. Last time, we received the notes of meeting after several requests from the Mauritius Internet Users and we eventually found that the notes of meeting they shared were not what SM talked about. I don't know about you, but this is serious to me!
>
> Is this why they do not want to share the notes of meeting? How can we have any guarantee that what they are writing is what happened at the meeting instead of what they would like us to believe.
>
> >According to the Mauritius .mu ccTLD registry its policies follows "three principles: openness, transparency and fairness". A forum about ".mu" which is not transparent harms any attempt to "take control of .mu"
>
> I can say that they failed to comply with their policies.
>
> >Does that mean that I cannot even say that there was a meeting?
>
> I would not encourage you to stay quiet SM. If the purpose of their meeting is to make people shut up then they should know that we don't want to be brainwashed and that our opinion matters.
>
> Regards.
>
>
Received on Sun Jun 14 2015 - 14:40:52 PST