<!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">All, <br>
<br>
This isnt going anywhere and I may just give it up, but before that
one last attempt to clarify the issue on which IGC's position is sought
for Feb open consultations.<br>
<br>
Whether MAG will at all </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">meet </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">in May and June this year, or
whether the Feb meeting will be the last MAG meeting?<br>
<br>
I am not sure why what is being proposed is not being made very clear
and issue of relatively open MAG meetings is being mixed with having
*no* MAG meeting under the stamp and authority of MAG at all, where
substantive decisions on agenda, </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">including its fine-tuning etc, </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">and the structure of next IGF
(all the talk of evolution and innovation, these are not possible
without MAG stamp), can be taken up. <br>
<br>
Wolfgang (and he is privy to MAG list discussions) in saying <br>
<br>
"</font>I would also not support to critisize that there is only one
offical MAG meeting planned for 2010".<font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
<br>
confirms that this is the proposal on the table. Jeanette, can you also
help by agreeing that the issue is as I framed. I have said many times
now that I am for more open participation in MAG meetings of people
associated with workshops etc as was also done in 2008. We can even get
more open, but without declaring that there is no MAG left to do
anything after Feb. Also to highlight that the proposer of this
proposal mentioned it as a 'do we need a MAG at all experiment' and so
IGC may also have an opinion on the </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">intent and </font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">substance of this experiment too.
<br>
<br>
What is interesting is that some of us are ready that Feb meeting
closes the IGF-5's agenda, while we have not even proposed any specific
agenda at all!! So maybe, it is like, what the heck, let anything
happen at the IGF, or let anything not happen.... As long as status quo
is protected, whomever it serves. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B602988.8030603@wzb.eu" type="cite"><br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have
resolved the issue. However, would it not have given us further
opportunities to strategise and argue and negotiate on the issue, and
on other issues we seek to put on agenda? That is the point.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a matter of speculation. You think another meeting would have
helped the agenda, other thought that it would jeopardize the little
consensus we had on the agenda.
<br>
<br>
Holding fully-empowered MAG allows
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">political issues to be tabled, negotiated
around and possibly brought on to the agenda. CS advocacy and
strategies are never a one-off thing, they are long struggles. And
every occasion to take this struggle forward is useful.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
With your last point I definitely disagree. I don't think it is a good
idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF meeting. It is
neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange workshops around
main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the IGF may revise the
agenda.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get or
not. </blockquote>
<br>
This is an open issue and there is no agreement on it. Unlike you I
think it is good to devote the last meeting before the IGF to the
planning of main sessions and workshops, and to invite all those who
are involved in organizing these events.
<br>
<br>
<br>
I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which
some people suspect, only suspect, </blockquote>
<br>
I don't think such suspicions should be part of our statement.
<br>
<br>
just may have had something to do with ardent human rights
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009
preparatory process. However, since this is just a conjecture of some,
I am fine if our statement de-links the two issues. we can say
something like.
<br>
<br>
"In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG
meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be decided,
and fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through taking note of
open consultations and discussion among MAG members. "
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You know that there is no consensus on this position. Several civil
society members have expressed support for the open meetings in May and
June on the MAG list. I find Wolfgang's suggestions much more
constructive.
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
Parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<br>
<br>
In this context, we have an
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">observation to make about the proposal
that there should be only one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a
formal decision is yet to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed
and in what form is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against
the rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must be
taken that this does not result in the programme for the Vilnius
meeting being prematurely set in stone.
<br>
<br>
On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human
rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion of a
development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting theme.
<br>
<br>
The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation towards the
development of tangible outputs, even if these do not amount to
recommendations, declarations or statements (though many of our members
would support outputs of such kinds). Whatever form its outputs take,
efforts should be taken to ensure that they are transmitted to relevant
external institutions through appropriate mechanisms.
<br>
<br>
Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should have
an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to a single
annual meeting. This could include the development of an ongoing work
program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on through online tools
and intersessional and regional meetings.
<br>
<br>
Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work could be
left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other issue-specific working
groups). In that case, it is widely accepted that there should be a
better mechanism than at present for these groups to present their
outputs to the IGF as a whole. This would require the IGF to begin to
set more stringent standards for such groups, including open
membership, democratic processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder
composition.
<br>
<br>
The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG members
plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF discussion
synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up by the IGF.
<br>
<br>
We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these thoughts,
which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several hundred members from
civil society, with a wide spread of geographic and gender
representation. We look forward to continuing to constructively engage
with and participate in the IGF over the course of its renewed term.
<br>
<br>
*About the IGC*
<br>
<br>
The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are
actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed during the
lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), our
mission is to promote global public interest objectives in Internet
governance policy making. It now comprises more than 400 individual
subscribers to its mailing list, who have subscribed to its Charter.
More about our coalition can be found at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org">http://www.igcaucus.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a>.
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<br>
*Jeremy Malcolm
<br>
Project Coordinator*
<br>
Consumers International
<br>
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
<br>
<br>
*CI is 50*
<br>
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement
in 2010.
<br>
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
consumer rights around the world.
_<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_</a>
<br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765"><http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765></a>.
Don't print this email unless necessary.
<br>
<br>
<br>
</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>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>