<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Jeremy,<div><br><div><div>On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Parminder has (as usual) voiced my concerns more eloquently than I earlier did. Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a year, important decisions have still been made without reference to it. I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash than the open consultation meeting. In my personal (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed.</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Could you help me to understand your concerns here? Which important decisions exactly have been made without reference to the MAG? I'm not privy to its internal deliberations, but as an outsider had thought that the MAG approves the program, main session speakers, etc. If that's not true and the MAG has been bypassed and had its authority eroded, have its members objected about this? One would think governments in particular would be jumping up and down and it'd be a big issue in the renewal debate, but I've not detected that so I must not be seeing the right documents etc. Any details would be appreciated, as this seems a rather pertinent point that underlies your statement in the proposed draft that</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><br></div><div>Many of the IGC's members believe that the MAG, drawing on input received at open consultation meetings, ought to exercise a greater influence than in the past on decisions about the future structure and processes of the IGF.</div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>I've not noticed many IGC members saying this so here too, any specifics would help me to assess the argument. I'm open to persuasion that I'm missing something, but at present most of the aspects of IGF I wish were different are not the result of the MAG having too little influence, needing a longer leash, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>BTW, in a related vein, I'd ask you about something previously and would still be interested in an answer:</div><div><br></div><div><div>On Jan 14, 2010, at 7:08 PM, William Drake wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px; "><br>Wearing my cynical hat, this may just mean that any of the decisions that<br>would otherwise have been made by the MAG in May will be made by the<br>Secretariat instead, rather than submitting them to the anarchy of the open<br>consultation meeting. </span></font></div></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px; "><br></span></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" size="5"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 18px; ">How would that work? Markus' message to the MAG suggests they meet a last time next month and set the agenda for the Vilnius meeting, and the program then would be fleshed out in two open planning meetings in May and June. What decisions could the secretariat go off and make on its own without the two open planning meetings noticing, and why would it try to?</span></font></div></div></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div>Thanks for your help,</div><div><br></div><div>Bill</div></div></body></html>