[governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Hi Bill,

Fully agree.

Bertrand


On 3/23/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
>  Hi Bertrand,
>
> To be clear, I didn't suggest you'd become a proxy for the industrialized
> countries and business, I said that what you listed as the MAG's functions
> is consistent with what they would want it to do.  Not quite the same thing,
> no dark intentionality implied, and I did add that perhaps your omission of
> the ongoing process/working groups formulation was just an oversight.  I
> gather it was, so I'm glad you clarified, and yes, based on your response,
> we are indeed on the same page.
>
> On your new points, I too would favor the facilitator orientation for the
> MAG, with the caveat that this could leave it more open to political
> monkeying around by the big dogs than if it had some small measure of
> independent authority.  On the other hand, realistically, anything the MAG
> recommends will have to be approved by the powers that be anyway.  This
> means, inter alia, that pressing the case for the ongoing process/working
> groups formulation will take some work, the arguments for will have to be
> nicely laid out so that the approach cannot be dismissed out of hand on the
> basis of misrepresentations, i.e. CS is pushing for a big heavy machinery
> with budgetary implications, etc.  We already got a taste of that, big time,
> in the February consultation, and one should anticipate more of the same.
> The only tool at our disposal is soft power, so it will be essential that CS
> participants in the MAG can articulate the vision and respond in a cogent
> and diplomatic way to the push back that will come.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:11 PM
> *To:* William Drake
> *Cc:* Governance
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?
>
>  Dear Bill,
>
> Thanks for your comments. I am more than happy to clarify, as there seems
> to be some misunderstanding here.
>
> *On Thematic Working Groups*
>
> I was among the first to recommend the creation of thematic working
> groups, and to push for the IGF to be much more than a mere annual event. I
> have said it publicly on every occasion for a long time, including in Malta,
> during the first consultations and on the list and I certainly have not
> changed minds. You also know that I put a lot of insistence on the
> sub-element of paragraph 72 dealing with monitoring the embodiment of WSIS
> principles in other internet governance mechanisms.
>
> We are all absolutely on the same page here and your formulation
> suggesting I have become suddenly a proxy for "industrialized country
> governments and business sector" vision of a limited IGF is a bit
> surprising, if not somewhat misleading.
>
> That aside, I nonetheless take your point that mentionning only those
> three initial elements might send a wrong signal and something could be
> added to the list of missions for the MAG to more explicitely refer to the
> facilitation of the creation of thematic working groups. See proposal below
> (and more on the mmwg list).
>
> *On the role of such small groups : facilitation or decision-making ?*
>
> This gives me the opportunity to clarify another issue. The point we
> probably have somewhat different views upon is the conception of what the
> role of such limited groups is, in this case the MAG, but that was also the
> case for the WGIG.
>
> There are two possible visions here :
> - either the small group has more power than the larger group it emanates
> from (in this case the Forum participants themselves), and the small group
> is a sort of representative sub-body that takes formal decisions on behalf
> of the larger group
> - or the smaller group is more a facilitator, a sort of microcosm of the
> larger group that helps the larger group organize itself, and come to
> decisions in a participatory way. And yes, that can include the small group
> helping draft proposals for further organization of the work.
>
> In the first case, the small group is equivalent to a formal Bureau or an
> expert group, and adopts recommendations and decisions on its own. In the
> second case, the smaller group catalyzes the rough consensus, via
> recognized, open and transparent procedures, including iterative refining of
> drafts that are ultimately adopted by the larger group.
>
> The first approach remains a type of representative democracy structure,
> only with a different way to select the "representatives" and a different
> pool of actors to choose from. Only the second format in my opinion is
> really exploring the new mechanisms for participative governance that are
> needed in the context of the IGF.
>
> In any case, the wording of the MMWG contribution clearly goes in this
> second direction as it says :
>
> 2. [] We oppose the establishment of potentially "heavy" top-down
> structures like a "Bureau" or a "Council", as these could bureaucratize
> the IGF process and reduce its flexibility and efficiency.
> 3. Members of the MMG believe that a lightweight Programme Committee would
> be sufficient to kick-start the process.
> 4. the Programme Committee should be replenished with new members on an
> annual basis.
>
> I recognize the MMWG contribution mentions the MAG making "final
> decisions" on the establishment of the list of themes. But this is probably
> a necessity for Agenda-setting because there is a deadline for any anual
> event and decisions are required rapidly given the proximity of the first
> Athens event. On other issues, I still think the MAG should rather play a
> facilitation/catalytic role rather than a  truly decision-making one.
>
> *How this applies to the MAG's mandate*
>
> In the context of the IGF, this means the MAG should indeed "facilitate
> the bottom-up formation of Discussion Groups or initiatives" (formulation of
> the MMWG contribution) and the elaboration of "transparent procedures and
> criteria for the formation and recognition of such groups and initiatives as
> well as how they can propose the results of their activities as input for
> consideration in the annual meetings".
>
> I agree this could be a fourth item in the mission of the MAG and will
> modify the previous mail accordingly.
>
> The only difference with the formulation of the MMWG submission is that
> the MAG would facilitate the elaboration of such procedures rather than
> establish them itself.  The MAG should of course play a leading role but a
> facilitation one rather than a decision-making one.  And in any case, a
> discussion on the principle of the creation of working groups should be
> strongly advocated at the May consultations.
>
> This specific aspect could be a subject for a new, more detailed MMWG
> contribution for the May meeting, or be included in a more general
> submission on the mandate of the MAG.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
> On 3/22/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Bertrand,
> >
> > As stated, the purposes you list are consistent with what the
> > industrialized country governments and the private sector have been
> > pushing.  They want to limit the forum to just an annual gab fest, we talk
> > about something and go home, and a MAG focused only on planning Athens would
> > fit with that orientation.  But the caucus in Tunis and CS folks more
> > generally have pushed for a broader, multilevel configuration in which the
> > IGF is an ongoing process of dialogue, analysis, and capacity building.  In
> > this formulation, there could be working groups and other initiatives (I
> > advocate one on application of the WSIS Principles to extant governance
> > mechanisms) working primarily virtually, and any outputs they might
> > devise---reports, recommendations, whatever---could potentially be brought
> > into the annual conferences, either just for information or for possible
> > discussion/action.  The MAG presumably would have to play a role in
> > supporting these developments.  Hence, in the MMWG input agreed last
> > month, we said, inter alia,
> >
> > "6. The Programme Committee [now MAG] should facilitate the bottom up
> > formation of 'Discussion Groups on Internet Governance' (DGIGs) on various
> > aspects of Internet governance, in particular with regard to the issues
> > listed in Section V of the WGIG Report. The Programme Committee should
> > establish transparent procedures and criteria for the formation and
> > recognition of any of such groups or initiatives stakeholders may wish to
> > organize on relevant topics.   All stakeholders should be able to propose
> > groups on a bottom-up basis.  Any such groups should be open to all
> > stakeholders that may wish to participate, transparent, and based primarily
> > on virtual collaboration.  They could engage in a range of activities,
> > e.g. inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting
> > studies, and developing recommendations for action.  Furthermore the Program
> > Committee should also define transparent procedures and criteria according
> > to which such groups could propose any results of their activities as
> > possible inputs for consideration in the annual meetings."
> >
> > Perhaps it was just an oversight, or are you now saying you disagree
> > with this approach?
> >
> > I hope that at least some of the CS people who end up on the MAG will
> > support what we've argued for prior.  It will be an uphill effort, but if
> > the restrictive model of the IGF goes unchallenged and is implemented
> > without debate, the potential value of the IGF will be limited, and the work
> > we did over several years in calling for a forum that could be used to
> > monitor, assess, and promote dialogue on the conduct of IG in various
> > contexts (as opposed to just talking about individual issues) will arguably
> > have been wasted.
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying,
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:
> > governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]*On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:07 PM
> > *To:* Governance
> > *Subject:* [governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?
> >
> >  Dear all,
> >
> > Here are a few preliminary comments on what the role(s) of the MAG could
> > be.
> >
> > *Purpose of the MAG*
> >
> > The MAG is established for this first Athens event. A new one should be
> > put in place for next year.
> >
> > Its role is to help organize the Athens event in terms of substance.
> > This could involve at least three elements :
> >
> > - *Agenda-setting* : facilitating the establishment of the final list of
> > themes. In this context, the MAG role is less to make a final decision but
> > to catalyze and reveal the rough consensus (cf. Avri's previous comment that
> > rough consensus does not appear on its own but must be catalyzed).
> > This includes, when issues are contentious, suggesting formulations that are
> > acceptable to all parties in order to allow them to get on the Agenda
> > - *Identification of actors* : help identify possible speakers and
> > relevant organizations that should/must be involved on a given issue. This
> > could mean launching and managing a "call for speakers" on each issue
> > retained on the Agenda after the May meeting and a "call for identication of
> > already involved players" in order to form the introductory panels on each
> > issue.
> > - *Promoting inclusiveness* : it is of the utmost importance that
> > participation in the Athens meeting involves actors from developing
> > countries and groups that were not involved directly in the WSIS process but
> > are relevant to the issues. MAG members in that respect should play an
> > active role in advertising the Athens Forum in other spaces (a sort of
> > ambassadorial role :-) and identifying ways and means (including financial
> > with the help of foundations or other supporters) to facilitate
> > participation of such actors
> >
> > In a certain way, the members of the MAG would act as "Trustees" to
> > guarantee the embodiment of the principles of multi-stakeholderism in the
> > first meeting of the IGF.
> >
> > Comments on these suggestions are of course highly welcome. I thought
> > these elements might also be helpful for the nomcom to select people that
> > could provide useful competences in that respect.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bertrand
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060323/75fac647/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance