<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hola,<div><br></div><div>I agree that there is a need for civil society to organize ourselves in a strategic way, to ensure that we can participate most effectively in this process. In particular, it would be beneficial for civil society to have a meeting - in private among civil society (which this list is not) - to discuss our strategy, goals and proposals before the next MAG meeting. </div><div><br></div><div>We should ensure that we have a virtual meeting just before the next MAG to coordinate among us, and to make sure that we know what are our common positions. This will enable MAG civil society members who are present at the meeting to be most effective - both at presenting common positions, and also at picking up and running with suggestions of the members at large that are put forward during the meeting. </div><div><br></div><div>While I appreciate the efforts that the Secretariat made to help those of us trying to participate remotely today, it is clear to me that it is simply not possible to rely completely on the live-time remote participation facilities for ensuring effective civil society input for several reasons.<br><div><br></div><div>First, there were ongoing technical glitches with the video stream today. The video and audio tracks disappeared or were not working properly during long periods of time today, and unfortunately at key moments of the discussion. I spent time coordinating with tech support. There were a need to scroll down the transcripts which was also uncomfortable. Second, there was a significant time lag, or latency, between the actual discussion on situ and when you were able to raise your hands and speak. This made it impossible to add comments at the right time, in the flow of the conversation, as the discussion on that topic was taking place. Several times, I found myself giving my comment after the topic of discussion had changed. Obviously it is hard for civil society to shape the discussion if we are having to add our comments only *after* the discussion has moved on or be able to make a second intervention as soon after other stakeholder put forward their message. Third, decisions were taken today at times when the video and sound and transcript were not working; (ie. when the right of observers to speak was discussed) all of a sudden it would come back, and only then I would discover that something had been decided and concluded. Taken together, these problems made effective remote participation frustrating and difficult.</div><div><br></div><div>But my sense is that there are strategies that we could use to better address this next time, if we can have a private meeting to coordinate before hand. </div><div><br></div><div>Finally, I want to apologize for not being able to attend the meeting in person and explain why I was not able to do so. First and foremost, there was no funding support for civil society to attend. I work for a member-supported non profit organization. We do not have a travel budget. Second, the confirmation that a MAG meeting would actually take place came so late that I could not change my existing commitments and travel schedule. Like all of you, I have multiple commitments and my schedule is set in advance. I arrived back in San Francisco a few hours before the meeting started. I joined the meeting at 3am my time, after close to 20 hours of travel the day before. With more time and notice, I might have been able to scrounge up funds or flying points to do so, but it was not possible in the time that we were given. In short, we need to have more notice of these meetings if we are going to ensure more civil society participation.</div><div><br></div><div>I would therefore like to suggest that we ask the Secretariat to set the dates for the next MAG meeting with sufficient time to allow those of us in civil society to make affordable travel arrangements so that we can attend. We know it is in May but no dates have been given so far. I would also like to suggest that civil society should have a virtual meeting(s) to coordinate among ourselves as soon as the next MAG meeting dates are announced.</div><div><br></div><div>gracias,</div><div><br></div><div>Katitza</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">I am not sure I understood your comment:<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers?<br> </span><br></div><div>I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting and although I believe it is odd that people who are there with ideas could not speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak would not bring prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice and more power. Of course, people who had the status of advisers are a different story.</div> <div><br></div><div>But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did not mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying all around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by MAG members. This silent presence did have an impact.</div> <div><br></div><div>I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but my logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for accountability puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't it?</div> <div><br></div><div>Marilia<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"> Clarification below McTim:<br> <div class="im"><br> On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote:<br> > Hi,<br> ><br> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br> >> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written<br> >> submissions, and the open consultation.<br> >><br> >> I am not quite sure that is what happened today.<br> >><br> >> My other observations, as an observer, are:<br> >><br> >> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals<br> >> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary<br> >><br> >> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well<br> >> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most<br> >> influential group by far in the MAG.<br> >><br> >> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling.<br> >><br> >> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and<br> >> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective<br> >> participation in the meeting.<br> >><br> >> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from<br> >> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments.<br> >><br> >> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they<br> >> there?<br> >><br> >> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space.<br> >><br> >> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect<br> >> on their strategies<br> ><br> ><br> > What is their strategy(ies)?<br> <br> </div>Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond<br> themselves.<br> <div class="im">><br> ><br> > ... they work in the short term, but will they work<br> >> in the long term? They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain<br> >> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to<br> >> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process<br> >> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to<br> >> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access,<br> >> regulation, openness etc. issues.<br> ><br> ><br> > How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well<br> > prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the<br> > most influential group by far in the MAG."<br> ><br> </div>Two different 'theys'.<br> <br> It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have<br> never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech<br> community.<br> <br> Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate.<br> Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort<br> to comment on the IGF programme.<br> <br> I believe they should work inside the IGF space.<br> <br> But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's<br> legitimacy and impact.<br> <br> My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with<br> developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or<br> get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you<br> don't have very well though out positions it is even harder.<br> <br> Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers?<br> What do MAG members think?<br> <br> Anriette<br> <br> <br> > ??<br> <div class="im">><br> <br> --<br> ------------------------------------------------------<br> anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br> executive director<br> association for progressive communications<br> <a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br> ____________________________________________________________<br> </div><div><div></div><div class="h5">You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br> To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br> <br> For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/" target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br> <br> Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br> <br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade<br>FGV Direito Rio<br><br>Center for Technology and Society<br>Getulio Vargas Foundation<br>Rio de Janeiro - Brazil<br> </div> ____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, visit:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br><br>For all other list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:<br> <a href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br><br>Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>