<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
On MAG composition, Parminder’s “Not that things would have changed if we had said so” seems like an understatement. Obviously there are pressures being brought to bear offline that significantly trump anything we might say, so stomping our feet rather than ‘pussyfooting’ by specifying exactly how many bodies from which groups we think there should be probably would have just been picking losing fights. Saying CS is underrepresented was adequate for our main concern and obviously, rectifying it would mean taking from overrepresented groups. That said, “While not perfect, the balance of the current MAG was felt to be reasonable.” So voila.<BR>
<BR>
Robin says there are four Russian govt advisors. Not being on MAG, I don’t know where she’s seeing this, would appreciate clarification. The list on the website still shows the Brazilian contingent. <BR>
<BR>
Let me raise a different issue: the program. I thought it a bit odd at the consultation when Nitin switched agenda items 3 and 4 around, so that we spent a big chunk of time after lunch hearing “reports from related activities” before finally getting around, with just one hour left, to what I’d have thought should be the main focus of a consultation, “The 2008 Meeting.” After the Indian presentation of the conference site there was not much time left, people were tired, and many had gone when it was finally the moment to talk about what stakeholders might like to see in the main sessions. In this environment, we introduced the caucus’ four proposals, APC, Switzerland, Brazil offered theirs, there were a few shorter comments, and then we were out of time. There was no possibility for serious follow on discussion concerning any of the proposals (although Brazil, Switzerland, and APC did indicate support for the Development Agenda concept). <BR>
<BR>
Now looking at the MAG summary, I see no connection between our proposals and the two schedules under consideration. Certainly the words enhanced cooperation, net neutrality, development agenda, and transparency/inclusion do not appear. In contrast, “the next billion” and “managing” (not governing, per ISOC circa 2003) the net are on both. So voila. Interesting process.<BR>
<BR>
Hopefully the packed schedules of main sessions will also accommodate a fairly unrestricted number of workshops, as these would seem the only option to pursue any of our proposals.<BR>
<BR>
Best,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 3/1/08 8:25 AM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on the list against saying so… which later extended to that we should not say anything about any other group’s representation and just say CS is under-represented. <BR>
<BR>
Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important for CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not pussyfoot as we often tend to do. <BR>
<BR>
We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing though many different means, and this is a cause of concern etc…Let them not do anything about this, but let them know that’s what we think…..<BR>
<BR>
Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. <BR>
<BR>
The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov representation it says <BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>“However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained.”<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Note the part ‘the group was informed’… what does that mean!! Who informed the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself seem to have deliberated and decided… but this is about something the group having been told … BY WHOM<BR>
<BR>
Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? <BR>
<BR>
Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity / authority of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of these diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach out to, much less influence… Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin Desai, who as SG’s Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG’s decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence with SG’s office and that is showing…. <BR>
<BR>
In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity. Now it may be too late to even call for it. <BR>
<BR>
An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times that there is no insistence on the name ‘bureau’ and whatever goes with it… So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office… No point ruing it. <BR>
<BR>
Parminder <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="2" WIDTH="100%"></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Tahoma"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> Robin Gross [<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org]">mailto:robin@ipjustice.org]</a> <BR>
<B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM<BR>
<B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members who were in Geneva think about this.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'> <BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Thanks,<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Robin<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'> <BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>The most telling point here appears to be<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:14.0px'>>However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50% of its members<BR>
>proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be maintained.<BR>
</SPAN><FONT COLOR="#000080"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'>Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really multistakeholder?<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Ian Peter<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Australia<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>www.ianpeter.com<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>www.internetmark2.org<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>www.nethistory.info<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>
</SPAN></FONT>
<P ALIGN=CENTER>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'><HR ALIGN=CENTER SIZE="2" WIDTH="100%"></SPAN></FONT>
<P>
<FONT SIZE="2"><FONT FACE="Tahoma"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:13.0px'><B>From:</B> Robin Gross [<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org]">mailto:robin@ipjustice.org]</a> <BR>
<B>Sent:</B> 01 March 2008 04:36<BR>
<B>To:</B> governance@lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf@ipjustice.org; Openstds@ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights@ipjustice.org; privacy-coalition@lists.apc.org<BR>
<B>Subject:</B> [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'><BR>
Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva this week is on the IGF website:<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf">http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf</a><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Times New Roman"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:16.0px'>Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report.<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'><BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>