<!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">Jeanette,<br>
<br>
Not at all to intrude on your weekend, so please respond to this, if
you will, on Monday. However, I will keep this discussion up because in
my view it hides much deeper implication then appear obvious.<br>
<br>
I continue to confused both by your messages and the emails in the MAG
list as to why a distinction is not being made between ''repeating the
last Sept planning meeting experiment' and holding 'a MAG + meeting'.
They are different, and we must discuss this specific point.<br>
<br>
I am all for MAG plus meetings, and my second email to yesterday made
it clear. However, and i also analyzed that, last Sept planning
meeting was pointedly a non-MAG meeting - it was *just* a planning
meeting (a new term and format was coined). Now this non MAG meeting, I
repeat, had no authority to do anything with the program document
already written up, while in all earlier years even up to the Sept
meeting program documents could be fine-tuned or even amended. This is
the crucial difference.<br>
<br>
Now, I could have taken that this is just a confusion, and your new
proposal always meant real MAG+ meetings in May and June 2010. However,
you keep saying that this experiment came out of very pragmatic
considerations of problems associated with extending the present MAG's
tenure. To quote your email<br>
<br>
</font>
<blockquote>>Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be
experimental and made a choice of experimental >options. This is not
the case. The experiment was born out of a specific problem: a full
rotation circle for >one or at best two meetings this year seemed a
lot of work, yet simply extending the term of the current >members
would most likely evoked criticism.<br>
</blockquote>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">This to me clearly implies
that in proposing what you and Markus describe as the 'third way' and I
describe as a drastic experiment, MAG will *not* be renewed after the
term of the present MAG ends after the Feb meeting. That is presented
as the only reason for trying this 'experiment' or third way. So there
will be *no* MAG post Feb. This obviously means the May and June
meetings will not be MAG plus but open houses, like existing open
consultations. This also corresponds to the fact that Sept 2009 meeting
was not a MAG (or MAG+) meeting, and you do keep referring to the
repeating of 'Sept 2009 experiment'. If I am not right in this
deduction please correct me. <br>
<br>
If MAG doesn't sit after Feb, what we will have a very sketchy and
broad themes, and most likely little or no change in the
structure/format, for IGF - 5, and that would be final. Nothing can
change after that, because what is written by MAG can only be changed
by MAG (this was kind of said by the chair during last May meeting). In
all the earlier years, both substance and structure of IGF was
discussed throughly till almost the end, which gave opportunity for
more elaborate themes and structural evolutions. This wont be
possible this time. That is *the* main issue. And IGC and other CS
groups (APC, IRP-DC etc) have been calling for both more specific and
elaborated themes and questions and structural evolutions for the next
IGF. So how does the new proposal serve our interests is completely
unclear to me. <br>
<br>
But if the MAG will be preserved after Feb, by just extending the
tenure of the present MAG I dont see what problem has been solved by
this 'third way' or experiment. If the proposal is just to have real
MAG+ meetings in May and June, why do we say we are repeating Sept 2009
experiment which was not a MAG plus meeting, but simply a planning
meeting. To repeat, for it to be MAG or MAG plus meeting the MAG's
authority to make substantive changes to the program document should be
'alive and existing' at the time of the meeting, and possible to be
exercised. <br>
<br>
Sorry if these are too many questions, but I really confused. <br>
<br>
Ok, my one specific question, that remained unanswered in the MAG list,
is - will there be any MAG at all after Feb this year or not, as per
the present proposal? What do you know about it?<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B51FBC2.7020407@wzb.eu" type="cite">Hi
Parminder,
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">My first task will be to emphatically restate
my position on openness and participative-ness, </blockquote>
<br>
I have never had any doubt about your position on openness in general
and I do understand that your issue is with forms and implications of
openness.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So while we seek more openness, we do look
with considerable suspicion at 'openness' which may, or even be
designed in order to, make the substantial evaporate. </blockquote>
<br>
I hope you don't mean to accuse me of setting up something to make
substance evaporate.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Meanwhile allow me to discuss an entirely
different issue - the radical 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment. While
I myself saw this proposal as possibly clearing the way for the new
structural possibility of no MAG or a greatly weakened MAG, you
yourself confirmed that, in your words
<br>
<br>
"This year's meetings following the February meeting could be
<br>
regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all."
<br>
<br>
<br>
You would agree that this is a rather drastic experiment. </blockquote>
<br>
I would say it is not clear right now whether or not this is going to
be a drastic experiment. Opening up some or all MAG meetings might not
change that much after all. It is certainly not meant to be a drastic
experiment, it builds on the experience of the open planning meeting in
September. You say in your other email that its background was a bit
odd. True, but I would say that except for the "breakout groups" we
formed around the main session topics not much was different from an
ordinary MAG meeting. The closer to the actual IGF meeting, the more
operational the MAG meetings have been over the last years. My guess is
that even without this experiment to open MAG meetings, we would have
considered an open planning meeting for all workshop organizers before
the next IGF.
<br>
<br>
Who chose to
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">try this experiment (and why) rather than,
and I repeat, other experiments more in keeping with IGC's earlier
position to seek outcomes from MAG/ IGF system like background
material/ papers on key themes for the IGF, greater specificity of key
policy issues to be taken up, inter-sessional thematic work etc. </blockquote>
<br>
My answer to your question is super pragmatic and won't satisfy you.
Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be experimental and made
a choice of experimental options. This is not the case. The experiment
was born out of a specific problem: a full rotation circle for one or
at best two meetings this year seemed a lot of work, yet simply
extending the term of the current members would most likely evoked
criticism.
<br>
<br>
<br>
(if you want I can flesh out how such
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">experiments can be tried.) To propose this
experiment over others, </blockquote>
<br>
This experiment is not privileged over others. I repeat, we didn't
choose among various experiments. On the other hand, I don't expect
this to be the last experiment of incremental change we'll see should
the IGF get a new mandate. On the contrary, so far I think the IGF
has been almost constantly changing, and I do hope that this spirit of
trying out structures and procedures will be maintained. I am also
optimistic that we will or would see changes with regard to outcomes.
It might start with more semantic artifices than substantive outcomes
but even this would be open to change. It seems crucial to avoid
accelerating such developments because skeptics need to be convinced as
well.
<br>
<br>
<br>
I beg
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">to state, is an ideological position on one
end of a large spectrum of views on what IGF should do. And, putting
into effect this experiment would serve to preempt movement towards
these greater possibilities, which in the view of many people are
needed to be explored in order to meet the full mandate of the IGF.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I beg to differ. First, if many people think it was a bad idea to open
MAG meetings, a new MAG can be formed under the new mandate. Second, I
am not convinced that the political weight and responsibility of the
MAG depends solely or mainly on the question of openness. The crucial
question in my view is whether or not stakeholders bring their issues
to the IGF and accept it as a venue for fleshing out practical
solutions. (I understand Fouad's email as a request to discuss how such
a goal can be achieved.)
<br>
<br>
The more political relevant the IGF, the more relevant are the
preparatory meetings and vice versa. The MAG per se is not important
and, I think, cannot simply be declared to gain importance.
<br>
<br>
My guess is that we have very different opinions on the MAG's sources
of authority and relevance. For me, the MAG, open or closed, can only
do substantive things if there is a broad consensus "out there" among
the stakeholders that more substance would a good thing. The formal
rules and structures of the MAG pale in comparison.
<br>
<br>
And now I plan to have a weekend :-)
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
>If I understand you correctly, Parminder, you imply that only a
formally constituted group with a exlusive >membership could take
over broader responsibilities? If so, I havn't thought about this
enough to agree or >disagree with you on this.
<br>
<br>
Yes, I think only a formally constituted group, but with strong
processes of openness and participation, can take up these broader
responsibilities. As for doing our thinking on this, I must say that we
need to do it now, and before we suggest structural experiments of the
kind do-we-need-a-MAG. Obviously, thinking about what we expect a
system to achieve, and how, should come before we meddle with its
structure. This is the reason that I proposed that a particular kind of
structural meddling/ change/ experiment presupposes a certain view of
IGF's purpose and possibilities, whether we hold it consciously or not.
And this view of IGF's purpose in my opinion is very one-sided.
<br>
<br>
Do you really think that an open house (if the do-we-need-MAG
experiment succeeds, on whatever basis success is construed, that is
all we will be left with) can really do the following tasks -
<br>
<br>
* Do intensive discussion/ negotiation to come up with specific
<br>
policy questions for IGF's consideration (As IRP DC statement
<br>
seeks and IGC has also sought in the past)
<br>
* Do elaborate linking and structuring of main sessions and
<br>
workshops to get the best synergies out (again roughly from IRP
DC
<br>
statement, but also from IGC's earlier statements)
<br>
* Discuss/ negotiate specific sub themes and discussion areas, for
<br>
themes like CIR and openness which are politically volatile in
<br>
order to have meaningful progress in these vital areas
<br>
* Select panelists
<br>
* Interact with other policy institutions (as per WSIS mandate)
<br>
* Come up with background material on some themes, syntheisize some
<br>
kind of outcomes of some IGF processes etc - things which IGC
have
<br>
called for earlier , and also needed to fulfill WSIS mandate of
<br>
giving advice/ recommendations
<br>
* There are many other things to possibly do for a group with clear
<br>
membership and not an 'open house', like suggested by Charity
vis
<br>
a vis remote participation, but I will stop here.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Do we realize that if a broadly representative mutlistakeholder group
like the MAG did not do all this, who will really end up doing it and
taking the decisions. Would that eventuality enhance openness and
participation, or greatly curtail it? Can we suggest -do-we-need-MAG
kind of experiments, nay actually take them up, without consideration
to these basic issues?
<br>
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi Parminder,
<br>
<br>
<br>
Parminder wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I have no problem with that, on the contrary.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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. </blockquote>
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>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The view that the MAG does and should
only do the narrow work of setting a very broad agenda </blockquote>
<br>
You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the
task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to
open the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea as
it catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the
transparency of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in the
face of an uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize the
next meeting. Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an impact on
the MAG's agenda or tasks.
<br>
<br>
presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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>
</blockquote>
<br>
After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's
responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. I
can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group might
consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly,
Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a
exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I
havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><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.
<br>
</blockquote>
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 along 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember
that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my
view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of
inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically
organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like
about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized
but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way
of creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures
than to empower a body such as the MAG to do so.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The annual rotation does involve a lot
of work for both the secretariat and all stakeholder groups.
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Now, I dont see why simply extending the
term of the old MAG does not solve that problem. </blockquote>
<br>
As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG
simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the present
members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG list
suggests that not many members share this point of view. I'd assume
that the caucus would have loudly protested if we had just announced
that we wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another term. Rightly
so in my opinion.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">at all necessary or not. </blockquote>
<br>
The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club.
You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it?
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">So, the 'do we even need a MAG'
experiment seems to not have much to do with the rotation issue, does
it. </blockquote>
<br>
It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get
those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved.
<br>
<br>
I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well.
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><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>
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
<br>
<blockquote 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>
</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>
</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>