<!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 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>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear Markus and
others, <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">A couple of questions
come to my mind regarding the new proposal which could merit some
discussion. <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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 </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">more or less </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">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? </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><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>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B4F3E60.9070103@wzb.eu" 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>
</body>
</html>