<!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">Katitza,<br>
<br>
I completely agree with your proposal for exploring how can the MAG </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">work </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">dynamically with a much larger
participative group in a manner that there is more openness and
participation, yet decision-making capacity is not compromised. This is
exactly the way to go. <br>
<br>
However, in my understanding this is not the background and intent of
the proposal on the table, because this will require constituting a MAG
post Feb - whether with some new members or just the old one. However,
the whole exercise started, as Jeanette says, </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">in order </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">to circumvent problems associated
with either of these options of constituting a new MAG. Also, please
see my comments in my email to Jeanette on what was the nature of last
Sept meeting.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It is important to
preserve, actually build further, MAG's decision making capacity. It is
required
even more for all kinds of structural evolutions that IGC and other CS
groups have been proposing, and are in fact needed to meet the full
mandate of the IGF.<br>
<br>
(The following is a broad socio-political critique and not directed
personally towards anyone. I hope it is considered as legitimate in
this group involved with political discussions.) But how it often
happens in furthering 'status quoist' politics is as follows:
structural changes keep on getting proposed for more and more openness,
till a structure is reached whereby it is then convenient to say, well,
the structure is so open that it is impossible to take any decisions,
which simply serves the status quo and status quoists. This is one way
neoliberalism deals with what it sees as the specter of politics. Give
masses voice, but deny them structures for political action. And the
voices will dissolve in a meaningless cacophony, while giving good
release to the masses, which is useful to give to the oppressed
especially in the times of all-pervasive new ICTs. After all, they too
need to use ICTs for some purpose . I think a new 1984 (Orwell) kind of
political satire - though with almost the opposite logic - can be
written on the future of masses with lots of voice and no political
power (2024 ??).<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
Katitza Rodriguez wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:F9447D48-8175-4B4B-9292-18B54A3CFBF3@datos-personales.org"
type="cite"><!--StartFragment-->
<p class="MsoNormal">Parminder, all:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I
understand that there will be a MAG+ meeting after the
February consultation. The next meetings will be similar to the
September
meeting, where MAG and non-MAG members were in charge of organizing the
panels. Last year the process of the selection of speakers well not
known until the end, nor we really have a truly discussion about the
format with the overall MAG in a way that we can achieve consensus. We
do many things in the last minutes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This year, we can be ready to build upon the
MAG+. For example, we should propose to discuss the process of how the
MAG+ meeting will work during
the open consultations in February, if any. Which will be the role of
the MAG? How the decisions will be taken? Review what it works and how
it can be improved. For example, we can argue that if, during the MAG+
meeting, we find a
different consensus on how the format should work in a specific
session, we should be able to make a
decision and carry out that proposal. In other words, make substantive
decisions, if it is needed. The question is How"? May be, everyone
should be in the room. The MAG can make
decisions. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Finally, we need to have more alternative to
this. These are just some thoughts.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All the best, Katitza</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p>
<!--EndFragment-->
<div>
<div>On Jan 16, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Parminder wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Jeanette<br>
<br>
I am </font><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">separately </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">taking up </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">here </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">some issues of fact related to
our discussion. <br>
<br>
You know that the September meeting, last year, was held under some
special and a bit strange circumstances. It was designated as not a
MAG meeting but just a planning meeting. I understand that you
realise the implications of this which were vaguely stated in the May
MAG meeting - that since it was not a MAG meeting it can only do
superficial programmatic stuff and nothing more substantial. It could
not amend anything on the program document already written by the
MAG, or even add anything substantial. This would hold even if everyone
present in the meeting room agreed to something, it simply was not
possible to do it. (We were very active on human rights agenda late
last year, but the closing/ locking of the program document made it
impossible to do any real stuff on it anymore after May, even if there
were political mass to do it.) Do you think such openness and
increased participation is of much real meaning? Is it not much much
better if there is more openness and greater participation while
somebody with some substantive authority is also there to take notice
of what all the increased participation really contributes. To be more
specific, is it not much better if the authority of the representative
multistakeholder group MAG is still open and alive at these
meetings to be able to make any real substantive change/ additions
etc to the program document? <br>
<br>
(On a more academic note, I have seen fewer real cases of such dramatic
contradiction between formal and substantive participation as this!)<br>
<br>
So questions like<br>
<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>
are not as simple and obvious as they look on the surface. Yes, I want
greater non-MAG participation as IGF program is fleshed out (and that
in any case happened even in 2008 when Sept meeting was a real MAG
meeting) but I do not want a very sketchy IGF agenda and program (so
broad as to be largely meaningless) which also is locked up early in
the year (as per the present proposal of no MAG meeting post Feb, in
Feb itself) with no possibilities of any real substantive input after
that. Do you want that? Thats what the present proposal will do.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
</font><br>
<br>
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B50BC0D.3050402@wzb.eu" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true" 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 moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>