[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010
Katitza Rodriguez
katitza at datos-personales.org
Sat Jan 16 21:23:16 EST 2010
Parminder, all:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I understand that there will be a
MAG+ meeting after the February consultation. The next meetings will
be similar to the September meeting, where MAG and non-MAG members
were in charge of organizing the panels. Last year the process of the
selection of speakers well not known until the end, nor we really have
a truly discussion about the format with the overall MAG in a way that
we can achieve consensus. We do many things in the last minutes.
This year, we can be ready to build upon the MAG+. For example, we
should propose to discuss the process of how the MAG+ meeting will
work during the open consultations in February, if any. Which will be
the role of the MAG? How the decisions will be taken? Review what it
works and how it can be improved. For example, we can argue that if,
during the MAG+ meeting, we find a different consensus on how the
format should work in a specific session, we should be able to make a
decision and carry out that proposal. In other words, make substantive
decisions, if it is needed. The question is How"? May be, everyone
should be in the room. The MAG can make decisions.
Finally, we need to have more alternative to this. These are just some
thoughts.
All the best, Katitza
On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Parminder wrote:
> Jeanette
>
> I am separately taking up here some issues of fact related to our
> discussion.
>
> You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under
> some special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated
> as not a MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand
> that you realise the implications of this which were vaguely
> stated in the May MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting
> it can only do superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more
> substantial. It could not amend anything on the program document
> already written by the MAG, or even add anything substantial. This
> would hold even if everyone present in the meeting room agreed to
> something, it simply was not possible to do it. (We were very active
> on human rights agenda late last year, but the closing/ locking of
> the program document made it impossible to do any real stuff on it
> anymore after May, even if there were political mass to do it.) Do
> you think such openness and increased participation is of much real
> meaning? Is it not much much better if there is more openness and
> greater participation while somebody with some substantive authority
> is also there to take notice of what all the increased participation
> really contributes. To be more specific, is it not much better if
> the authority of the representative multistakeholder group MAG is
> still open and alive at these meetings to be able to make any
> real substantive change/ additions etc to the program document?
>
> (On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such
> dramatic contradiction between formal and substantive participation
> as this!)
>
> So questions like
>
> >The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive
> club. You attended the meeting last September. >It did work well,
> didn't it?
>
> are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I
> want greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out
> (and that in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was
> a real MAG meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and
> program (so broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked
> up early in the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting
> post Feb, in Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real
> substantive input after that. Do you want that? Thats what the
> present proposal will do.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>
>> Hi Parminder,
>>
>>
>> Parminder wrote:
>>> Hi Jeanette,
>>>
>>> The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider
>>> ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and
>>> engage in a bit of debate on the issue.
>>
>> I have no problem with that, on the contrary.
>>
>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> we discussed some of the implications you mention below.
>>>>
>>>> This year's meetings following the February meeting could be
>>>> regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all.
>>> But why this experiment and not many others that could be
>>> attempted. Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more
>>> inter-sessional work, preparing background papers etc - stuff
>>> which has been a part of many a proposals for IGF evolution,
>>> including from the IGC. I think this thing being done in the name
>>> of an experiment can be very pre-emptive.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps open planning meetings such as the one we had in
>>>> September 2009 are sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the
>>>> need for some sort of steering committee does arise, perhaps not.
>>
>>> The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of
>>> setting a very broad agenda
>>
>> You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected:
>> the task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The
>> idea to open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a
>> good idea as it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we
>> increase the transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the
>> rotation process in the face of an uncertain future. Everybody can
>> join and help organize the next meeting. Hence, opening up the
>> meeting shouldn't have an impact on the MAG's agenda or tasks.
>>
>> presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate
>>> for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in
>>> a largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be
>>> attempted. This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is
>>> pre-emptive. Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a
>>> larger set of goals and activities - these other parts of the IGF
>>> mandate can just not begun to be addressed.
>>
>> After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the
>> MAG's responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating)
>> membership. I can well imagine that the MAG or any other future
>> advisory group might consider taking over other tasks. If I
>> understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a formally
>> constituted group with a exlusive membership could take over
>> broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this enough
>> to agree or disagree with you on this.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new
>>>> mandate for an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue
>>>> to have a secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory
>>>> structure, this year's preparation seems to be a good opportunity
>>>> to experiment with processes that are more open and transparent
>>>> and less burdensome.
>>> Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to
>>> achieve. and it is well known that there are very different views
>>> on this subject. So why a certain view at one end of the spectrum
>>> is made to look like the obvious and natural one, and processes
>>> being described as burdensome or not in relation to that view of
>>> the IGF's objective.
>>>
>>> Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along
>>> global policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be
>>> immensely necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often
>>> sought that IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop
>>> background material, make more specific agenda with specific
>>> questions of policy (IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too
>>> seeks this)... any of this may look burdensome, but still be very
>>> necessary to evolve towards. What happens to all those demands of
>>> the IGC and many others? Why cant we do some experiment towards
>>> this direction rather than in the opposite direction to it?
>>
>> I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also
>> remember that I disagreed with your view on the current state of
>> things. In my view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up
>> process of inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are
>> geographically organized doesn't mean that there is no link between
>> them. What I like about these regional efforts is that they were
>> not centrally organized but emerged from local initiatives. I think
>> this is a much better way of creating a dense network of IGF
>> related processes and structures than to empower a body such as
>> the MAG to do so.
>>
>>>> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the
>>>> secretariat and all stakeholder groups.
>>
>>> Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does
>>> not solve that problem.
>>
>> As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG
>> simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the
>> present members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG
>> list suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd
>> assume that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just
>> announced that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another
>> term. Rightly so in my opinion.
>>
>>
>> Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is
>>> at all necessary or not.
>>
>> The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive
>> club. You attended the meeting last September. It did work well,
>> didn't it?
>>
>>
>>> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much
>>> to do with the rotation issue, does it.
>>
>> It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to
>> get those who organize workshops and main session fully and early
>> involved.
>>
>> I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well.
>>
>> jeanette
>>>
>>> Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover
>>> of more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to
>>> support the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that
>>> the discussion list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction
>>> if the most pressing objective here may just be 'openness'.)
>>> Greater openness and even participation is a very different
>>> issue than doing away with a representative body, which may be
>>> required to accomplish many task that cannot be done by 'open
>>> houses'. We all know there are many such tasks, some of them
>>> stated above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the IGF
>>> process.
>>>
>>> So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and
>>> where to move forward from here, we can as well be posing
>>> questions like
>>>
>>> "Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond
>>> what it may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more
>>> structured IGF, with an active core representative
>>> multistakeholder group steering it?"
>>> And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few
>>> different activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a do-
>>> we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment.
>>>
>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Parminder wrote:
>>>>> Hi All
>>>>>
>>>>> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list.
>>>>> More openness is always welcome but there are also some larger
>>>>> structural questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF
>>>>> which worry me since the proposal of 'only open meetings' has
>>>>> been made in connection with the need or not of renewing the
>>>>> MAG. I will posit these larger questions a little later while I
>>>>> share my mentioned email. Parminder
>>>>>
>>>>> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am
>>>>> funded for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I
>>>>> was also funded to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was
>>>>> *not* a MAG meeting.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Markus and others,
>>>>>
>>>>> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal
>>>>> which could merit some discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand
>>>>> that MAG could exist while there be only open planning meeting
>>>>> as in Sept last.)
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and
>>>>> intangible - of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year
>>>>> in the run-up to an IGF meeting, and during the meeting?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do
>>>>> without a MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning
>>>>> meetings in Geneva, outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by
>>>>> the secretariat, is all that is needed to hold the IGF and
>>>>> comply with the WSIS requirements?
>>>>>
>>>>> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural
>>>>> changes to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if
>>>>> it comes - can have even more special significance?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks and best regards
>>>>>
>>>>> Parminder
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year.
>>>>>> Some people were in favor of an extended term for the present
>>>>>> membership because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be
>>>>>> extended and, should it be extended, under what terms. It could
>>>>>> be that the MAG meeting in May would be the only one for the
>>>>>> new MAG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on
>>>>>> this matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups.
>>>>>> This afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came
>>>>>> up with a third solution. Markus just sent the following
>>>>>> message to the MAG list and asked me to forward it to the
>>>>>> caucus list as well. I expect the caucus will be happy about
>>>>>> the proposed solution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well if any
>>>>>> decision were taken in this matter without consulting the
>>>>>> broader community! However, as there is a distinct possibility
>>>>>> that a renewed MAG will hold one meeting only, there is also a
>>>>>> strong argument against launching the heavy rotation machinery
>>>>>> just for the sake of this principle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons
>>>>>> of both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there
>>>>>> might be a third way. We both wondered whether there was any
>>>>>> need for a closed meeting at all in May. As last September's
>>>>>> planning meeting went rather well, we wondered whether we could
>>>>>> not prepare most of this year's meeting in an open process. By
>>>>>> doing so, we would also take into account the calls for more
>>>>>> inclusiveness and transparency made during the consultation in
>>>>>> Sharm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the
>>>>>> agenda for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed
>>>>>> out in two open planning meetings in May and June.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal
>>>>>> of the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on
>>>>>> how to continue could be taken in light of this experiment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> Markus
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>
>>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100116/8d6f3489/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list