[governance] on Observers at MAG meeting
Anriette Esterhuysen
anriette at apc.org
Fri Feb 25 04:33:39 EST 2011
Hi all (from Montreux)
Jeanette thanks for your reflections.. they make sense and I share them.
Marilia.. what I meant is that, in a muli-stakeholder group such as the
MAG, one might find a more productive work pattern emerge when it is a
group of people who are there as individuals (but reflecting the
interest of different stakeholder groups) working together as a team, in
a more closed space (such as was the case with the WGIG).
It felt to me as if the observers, and their efforts to participate
indirectly via Skype chats, might have distracted MAG members from the
process, as much as it contributed. It could perhaps make it more
difficult for the MAG time to 'gel' as a working group, and for people
to follow internal group dynamics.
The seating arrangement (auditorium) is REALLY not a good idea for a
working group. People should be able to see one another's faces. The
chair (Alice) did her best to create an inclusive atmosphere and be
respectful of all inputs... but she was out there on the stage, which
distanced her from the group, and this must have made her task much more
difficult.
I think that if observers are allowed, they should also be able to speak.
Otherwise, it might be better for the MAG to meet on its own... but to
really take the mandate given them by the Open Consultation and written
inputs seriously.
Anriette
On 25/02/11 10:15, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anriette is right, participation of governments has gone down over the
> years. I think there are several reasons for this. Not all of them are
> negative. For example, some governments probably did not come anymore
> when the preparatory process proved stable enough to bear no further
> political risks (for example, of repeating the WSIS paralysis on
> CIR-related topics).
>
> Also, the last two years were clearly overshadowed by the upcoming
> evaluation. Political attention shifted from the IGF itself to all the
> maneuvers in New York surrounding the report on the IGF.
>
> The tasks and operation of the MAG meetings suit stakeholders more than
> governments because we focused more and more on the substance of the
> program, and to some degree on improving the format. Such issues
> activate the competences of practitioners and conference goers more than
> people with a public administration background.
>
> I agree with Anriette that the declining participation of governments is
> bad for both the MAG and the IGF but part of this is probably due to the
> MAG's role as a program committee.
>
> Anriette is also right about the very good coordination of all
> ISOC-related members. We have noticed this many times, also on this
> list. Civil society cannot compete in this respect, neither can
> governments btw. CS and governments have the same problem: we simply do
> not agree to the extent that ISOC folks do. We disagree not only in
> terms of substance, we also disagree in terms of political style. The
> latter might even be more divisive.
>
> Speaking personally, at least for the last two years I preferred
> negotiating program issues with people "from the other political camp"
> simply because I did not have to defend myself all the time. While we
> may have disagreed on political positions, we accepted each other as
> individuals who put a lot of effort into this process.
>
> jeanette
>
>
> On 24.02.2011 23:08, Marilia Maciel wrote:
>> I am not sure I understood your comment:
>> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers?
>>
>> I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting
>> and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas
>> could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak
>> would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It
>> would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice
>> and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a
>> different story.
>>
>> But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did
>> not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying
>> all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by
>> MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact.
>>
>> I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but
>> my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for
>> accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't
>> it?
>>
>> Marilia
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org
>> <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Clarification below McTim:
>>
>> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen
>> <anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>> wrote:
>> >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the
>> written
>> >> submissions, and the open consultation.
>> >>
>> >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today.
>> >>
>> >> My other observations, as an observer, are:
>> >>
>> >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make
>> proposals
>> >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into
>> plenary
>> >>
>> >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely
>> well
>> >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are
>> the most
>> >> influential group by far in the MAG.
>> >>
>> >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but
>> battling.
>> >>
>> >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals,
>> text and
>> >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for
>> effective
>> >> participation in the meeting.
>> >>
>> >> * Government participation is very limited... with good
>> efforts from
>> >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments.
>> >>
>> >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why
>> are they
>> >> there?
>> >>
>> >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly
>> space.
>> >>
>> >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should
>> reflect
>> >> on their strategies
>> >
>> >
>> > What is their strategy(ies)?
>>
>> Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond
>> themselves.
>> >
>> >
>> > ... they work in the short term, but will they work
>> >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from
>> certain
>> >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not
>> conducive to
>> >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the
>> process
>> >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and
>> want to
>> >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet
>> access,
>> >> regulation, openness etc. issues.
>> >
>> >
>> > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well
>> > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are
>> the
>> > most influential group by far in the MAG."
>> >
>> Two different 'theys'.
>>
>> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have
>> never really participated. I was not referring to the business and
>> tech
>> community.
>>
>> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate.
>> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an
>> effort
>> to comment on the IGF programme.
>>
>> I believe they should work inside the IGF space.
>>
>> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's
>> legitimacy and impact.
>>
>> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with
>> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an
>> impact, or
>> get your points across. If English is not your first language, and
>> you
>> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder.
>>
>> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many
>> observers?
>> What do MAG members think?
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> > ??
>> >
>>
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
>> executive director
>> association for progressive communications
>> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>>
>> Center for Technology and Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list