<!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=696464914-23032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi
Bertrand,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT face="Book Antiqua">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.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Cheers,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><FONT
face="Book Antiqua">Bill</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=696464914-23032006><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> Bertrand de La Chapelle
[mailto:bdelachapelle@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:11
PM<BR><B>To:</B> William Drake<BR><B>Cc:</B> Governance<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<DIV>Dear Bill,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks for your comments. I am more than happy to clarify, as
there seems to be some misunderstanding here. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>On Thematic Working Groups</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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). </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>On the role of such small groups : facilitation or
decision-making ?</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are two possible visions here :</DIV>
<DIV>- 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 </DIV>
<DIV>- 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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In any case, the wording of the MMWG contribution clearly goes in this
second direction as it says :</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. [] <FONT face=Arial size=4><FONT size=2>We oppose the establishment of
</FONT><FONT size=2>potentially "heavy" top-down structures like a "Bureau" or
a "Council", as </FONT><FONT size=2>these could bureaucratize the IGF process
and reduce its flexibility and </FONT><FONT
size=2>efficiency.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4><FONT size=2>3. Members of the MMG believe that a
lightweight Programme Committee would be sufficient to kick-start the process.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=4><FONT size=2>4. <FONT face=Arial size=4><FONT
size=2>the Programme </FONT><FONT size=2>Committee should be replenished with
new members on an annual basis.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P align=left><FONT size=2>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. </FONT><FONT face=Arial></FONT></P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>How this applies to the MAG's mandate</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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". </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree this could be a fourth item in the mission of the MAG and will
modify the previous mail accordingly. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bertrand</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 3/22/06, <B class=gmail_sendername>William
Drake</B> <<A href="mailto:drake@hei.unige.ch">drake@hei.unige.ch</A>>
wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr">
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Hi Bertrand,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><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><FONT face="Book Antiqua">in the MMWG input
agreed last month, we said, inter alia,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">"<SPAN lang=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."
</SPAN></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><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><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><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><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Thanks for
clarifying,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua">Bill</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN><FONT face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT
face="Book Antiqua"></FONT></P></DIV><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>-----Original
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> <A
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</A> [mailto:<A
onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"
href="mailto:governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org"
target=_blank>governance-bounces@lists.cpsr.org</A>]<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></DIV>
<DIV style="DIRECTION: ltr"><SPAN class=e id=q_10a21d5afdd145ef_1>
<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></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>