<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Avri Doria wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:B3E01961-8FFE-4FB5-9AB0-B1569376F8E1@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18 Jan 2010, at 08:06, Parminder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">i meant to say, 'erosion in the decision making capacity of the MAG'
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
>From where I sit, I don't see this - and I have been observing since day 1. If anything i think its decision making capacity has grown.
</pre>
</blockquote>
Avri, This is said in the middle of, and strictly only with regard to,
a rather intense debate regarding what has been described as
do-we-even-need-a-MAG experiment. An experiment which is not just an
idea but has taken a rather strong force, as you would have followed on
the MAG list. The way towards checking (proving) this hypothesis is to
have only one MAG meeting in Feb, and have the other two meetings only
as planning meetings following the Sept 2009 'experiment'. The logic
presented is that apparently we really do not need these 2nd and 3rd
MAG meetings and open house assemblies would be enough. <br>
<br>
I repeat, I never said anything about erosion of the decision making
capacity over the years (though decision-making capacity certainly was
not there in Sept 2009, because there was no MAG meeting and in this
regard nothing on the program sheet could be substantially changed,
though such changes could be, and were, made till and during Sept MAG
meetings in the earlier years.) <br>
<br>
My comments are strictly within the above context. And i do think that
if this group primarily engages with the IGF, such an important move
vis a vis the only structured element of the IGF, i.e. MAG, should
evoke much greater engagement, than, in my humble opinion, has been
seen on this list. <br>
<br>
It has been decided that this issue will also be put for the
consideration of the open consultation in Feb. Is IGC going to make a
statement on this issue?<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:B3E01961-8FFE-4FB5-9AB0-B1569376F8E1@acm.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
While it is true that the New York office of the UN makes the final decisions, it is the MAG that makes all the decisions regarding the program in its recommendations. And I do not know of an instance where the UNSG's offices or the DESA USG has contradicted those recommendation.
I have watched the MAG carefully deliberate the options, taking into account the comments from contributions and the consultations. And even when the secretariat has made recommendations to the MAG on certain scheduling options based on its understanding from the contributions, the MAG has felt free to shoot these down or alter them, as the consensus in the MAG wished.
>From my view, I have seen the MAG remain consistent in its capacity to make decisions under the consensus building leadership of its chair. Some people may not be happy when their ideas and suggestions are not adopted by the MAG, but when that has happened it has been the consensus of the MAG that made the recommendation.
a.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
For all list information and functions, see:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>