<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Jeanette,<br>
<br>
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. <br>
</font><br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu" type="cite"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi, <br>
<br>
we discussed some of the implications you mention below. <br>
<br>
This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded
as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all.</font> </blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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. <br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu" type="cite"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> 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. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">The view that the MAG does
and should only do the narrow work of
setting a very broad agenda 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. <br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu" type="cite"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
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.</font></blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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. <br>
<br>
Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">along </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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?<br>
</font>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu" type="cite"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"> The annual
rotation does involve a lot of work for both the secretariat and all
stakeholder groups. <br>
</font></blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Now, I dont see why simply
extending the term of the old MAG does not
solve that problem. Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is
at all necessary or not. That too an experiment done in the year when
some new
'text' on IGF processes etc may get written as a part of its renewal. <br>
<br>
A couple of different things are being mixed here which are needed to
be separated. First is the issue of nominating new members for the
purpose
of rotation of MAG members. While I am for going ahead and
doing the rotation, even if we do not want to, simply extending the
tenure of the
old MAG solves this problem. (I still dont have the answer to my
question whether there will be any MAG at all post Feb.)<br>
<br>
So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do
with the rotation issue, does it. <br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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<br>
<br>
"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?" <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Parminder </font>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B503878.1080709@wzb.eu" type="cite"><br>
jeanette <br>
<br>
Parminder wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi All <br>
<br>
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 <br>
<br>
(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.) <br>
<br>
Dear Markus and others, <br>
<br>
A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which
could merit some discussion. <br>
<br>
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.) <br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
Thanks and best regards <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi, <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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? <br>
<br>
Dear colleagues, <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Please let me know what you think about this possible approach. <br>
<br>
Best regards <br>
Markus <br>
____________________________________________________________ <br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> <br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________ <br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a> <br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see: <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>