<!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 Bertrand,<br>
<br>
</font>>Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction
with "natural
rotation" for February and two MAG+ >meetings (in the same format as
September 2009) for May and June ?<br>
<br>
I prefer we go with the normal process of real rotation. After all
nothing has indicated that we wont have an IGF post 2010. In any case,
formally MAG is renewed only for a year at a time. So we wont be doing
anything 'formally' wrong by doing the full rotation, but only
indicating as almost all participants at the IGF indicated, that they
see IGF will go on, and want it to go on. Why should we be lazy on
this? But I can live with a decision not to rotate. <br>
<br>
However, the second part of your question "(in the same format as
September 2009) for May and June?", has been the main issue of nthe
whole debate.<br>
<br>
No, I do not want to repeat the format of Sept 2009. You know that Sept
2009 had *no* MAG meeting, and the program doc was completely closed
and locked in May and it was declared that since there is no MAG
meeting in Sept, the program doc cannot be amended or even fine tuned
in any substantive way. To lock the (what only only be a sketchy)
program doc in Feb itself this time, which is meant by the proposal on
the table, is not at all acceptable. and i also dont see any reason why
should it be done. Your emails itself notes that post-Feb MAG meetings
in the past years have done major work. Why should it not be done this
year? What is the motivation for suggesting that? <br>
<br>
On the other hand I am certainly for MAG meetings to be open to
participation by all interested stakeholders. But as I said these are
to be 'MAG meetings' and not *non MAG* planning meetings, which was
the format of September 2009. <br>
<br>
<br>
>Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a
suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming >years, once the IGF
is
continued. <br>
> I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. <br>
<br>
Then you did not note the fact that the proposer of the proposal that
we are discussing did clearly call it a possible experiment of
do-we-even-need-a-MAG-at-all. <br>
<br>
You may have access to MAG list - it was clearly proposed that MAG
meets a last time in Feb, specifically in response to misgivings on
whether simply extending the tenure of the old MAG will go well with
everyone. So I am responding to a real situation, where it was proposed
that there will be no MAG for the most of the year, and not an imagined
'conspiracy theory'.<br>
<br>
Parminder<br>
<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:954259bd1001180956l33e1961al27d2844141f30ee9@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Dar all,<br>
<br>
Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding
the MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit
complementary) issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid
mixing them together. This could hopefully help structure further
discussions and avoid distracting the list from the more pressing task
of finalizing the IGC contribution for February (see comment at the
end). The four issues are : <br>
<br>
<b>1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG or not ?</b><br>
<br>
What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for
the preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG
installed in May and remaining until February to deal with the
stock-taking session on the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will take
place in September, earlier than previous IGFs, and it will be the last
of the first serie of five. <br>
<br>
The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole
process of MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one
meeting in May), given in addition the decision to be made regarding
the continuation of the IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG
was one simple option, with maybe the mere replacement of "natural
rotation", ie people leaving their MAG position for one reason or the
other. <br>
<br>
Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting
could be added in June and suggested that the same format as the one
used in September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be
used. This format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG
+. Are IGC members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with
"natural rotation" for February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same
format as September 2009) for May and June ? An alternative could be <br>
<br>
<b>2) Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ?</b><br>
<br>
Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a
suppression of the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is
continued. <br>
<br>
I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of
the MAG as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and working
methods of the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) should be
considered one of the positive "acquis" of the last five years and most
actors want it preserved. In addition, there is a valid argument
regarding the capacity for
certain actors to get funding if they are part of a MAG, that they
would not get for more amorphous open meetings. <br>
<br>
The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong
support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than
can of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat
has any intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here. <br>
<br>
<b>3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ?</b><br>
<br>
This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current
functioning can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of the
lessons from the previous event, the MAG in the February meeting
outlines the main structure of the next IGF and does a preliminary
identification of the general theme, the general structure of the event
(number, length and format of the main sessions) and the labels of the
main sessions. This often raises interesting political discussions and
produces formulations that are acceptable to all, but give some more
detailed focus on one specific angle for each session. <br>
<br>
The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments
and refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final
composition of the panels (if any) is determined ideally during the
September meeting, and usually up to the last minute :-) Last
September, the panel composition and the choice of moderators was
prepared in an open format (that is proposed again this year). <br>
<br>
This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a
progressive refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four
themes of Athens (the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness,
Diversity and Access) , we have progressively evolved into the themes
addressed in Sharm, that included : Critical Internet Resources;
Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the light of WSIS Principles and
an emerging issues session on Social Media. Vilnius can continue this
trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a balanced way. <br>
<br>
Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers of
the MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be
further increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective of
the continuation of the IGF. <i>(It is important to note however that
the organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF in
Sharm el Sheikh were out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and
entirely under the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of
the Tunis Agenda)</i>. <br>
<br>
But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more
clearly between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a
major purpose of the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main
reasons for keeping a MAG) and b) the
choice of panelists that can benefit from a broader, more open
interaction. For Vilinus, in order to reduce the overall number of
workshops, the MAG could also envisage identifying a few sub-themes of
the main sessions, to be discussed in dedicated workshops that it would
initiate and call the relevant stakeholders to co-organize (see French
contribution previously posted). <br>
<br>
<b>4) The composition and nomination of the MAG</b><br>
<br>
This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved
balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN
Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could
usefully be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years.
<br>
<br>
Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political
undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation
should be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang). <br>
_______________<br>
<br>
I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our
co-moderators could help structure future discussions around these four
threads. <br>
<br>
The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right
now and the three other ones could benefit from <b>a short summary of
the recent discussion by our co-moderators</b>, in order to allow a
broader but more structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC list
bursts into a frenzy of contributions whenever some statement has to be
prepared, often veering into parallel or divergent threads, and the
arguments then peter out, only to be rehashed later in another burst. <br>
<br>
These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to try
and summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move
forward. I hope this helps. <br>
<br>
Best<br>
<br>
Bertrand<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
For <br>
<br>
-- <br>
____________________<br>
Bertrand de La Chapelle<br>
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
the Information Society<br>
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of
Foreign and European Affairs<br>
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32<br>
<br>
"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
Saint Exupéry<br>
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>