<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi
Bertrand,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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, </FONT></SPAN><SPAN
class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">in the MMWG input agreed last
month, we said, inter alia,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">"<SPAN lang=EN-GB
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Book Antiqua'; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB">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."<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Perhaps it was
just an oversight, or are you now saying you disagree with this approach?
</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Thanks for
clarifying,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Bill</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=687174311-22032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></P></DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Bertrand de La
Chapelle<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:07 PM<BR><B>To:</B>
Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B> [governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG
?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>Dear all,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here are a few preliminary comments on what the role(s) of the MAG could
be. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Purpose of the MAG</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The MAG is established for this first Athens event. A new one should be
put in place for next year. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Its role is to help organize the Athens event in terms of substance. This
could involve at least three elements :</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>- <STRONG>Agenda-setting</STRONG> : 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 </DIV>
<DIV>- <STRONG>Identification of actors</STRONG> : 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. </DIV>
<DIV>- <STRONG>Promoting inclusiveness</STRONG> : 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 </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bertrand</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>