<!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">
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4B60BB85.5030006@wzb.eu" type="cite"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">Wolfgang (and he is privy to MAG list
discussions) in saying
<br>
<br>
"I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical
MAG meeting planned for 2010".
<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. </blockquote>
<br>
Sorry, I don't understand what exactly you want me to confirm. </blockquote>
I thought I would leave this now, but if you insist, I will say it once
again. I want you to confirm the following, so those who may want to
make an opinion on this matter can do so.<br>
<br>
<ol>
<li>That the proposal on the table is *not* to have more open MAG
meetings following open consultations, but have *no* MAG meeting at all
after Feb. In fact even have no MAG at all after Feb.</li>
<li>That the proponent of this proposal in the MAG list, and you
yourself on this list, mentioned it as a 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG'
experiment. Because others can then judge it as an experiment, with
possible implications of conclusion of 'success' of the experiment
(whoever makes the criteria and evaluation). Also judge the
implications of doing such an experiment at a time which more
legitimate processes of review and possible restructuring of the IGF/
MAG are already on.<br>
</li>
</ol>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4B60BB85.5030006@wzb.eu" type="cite">It seems
obvious that we associate very different things with opening up the MAG
to other participants.
<br>
<br>
We also have different expectations of what the MAG can actually
achieve. What you call fine-tuning is in my view not the job of the MAG
but of the people who actually organize specific events.
<br>
<br>
My personal example is the preparation of the main session on critical
internet resources. I have now done this twice. Each time, the part of
the MAG part was to agree on general issues that should be discussed in
the main session (also specified by the MAG). The fine tuning was not
done by the entire MAG but by an informal group consisting of
people/experts interested in the topics and the moderators. I expect
the same division of labor between MAG and active participants will
develop again this year. I don't understand what's wrong with this
division of labor as long as we make sure that interested parties can
get involved.
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I have said many times
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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 intent and
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>
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
<br>
<blockquote 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>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>