<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<br>
On Saturday 26 February 2011 02:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title>Message</title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19019">
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">I have found myself even more out of
the loop than Katiza or others for variety of travel and
other reasons.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"></span> </div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">In an earlier meeting I asked that
someone on site volunteer/be designated to provide some sort
of running substantive commentary.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"></span> </div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">In reading through the emails on this
meeing I have been finding that 90% are process related.
Certainly necessary for those on the ground but of little
interest or value to anyone else.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"></span> </div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">What I haven't found are any emails
that summarize what the issues are that are being addressed,
who is addressing them and how, what the outcomes are and
what is the likely import of those decisions.</font></span></div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"></span> </div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Without that there is really no
possibility of even following what is going on let alone
contributing at any point either now or in the future.</font></span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dear Mike<br>
<br>
I am at the WG on IGF improvements and it has just ended.<br>
<br>
I have almost always tried to submit a detailed report on any such
meeting that I participate as a CS rep, describing but also
analysing what had happened. These meeting are intensely political
activities - not technical, informational etc - and what really is
happening is difficult to capture by running commentaries. Also
often communicating substantial negotiation issues/angles, along
with opinions on them, to open lists may compromise what civil
society and other progressive actors are trying to achieve. <br>
<br>
I understand that from the outside it may be a little frustrating,
but I am not much of a twitter guy :) . However, anyone wants to
know about what I see as going on, Pl contact me offline, and I will
provide a detailed response, as I will presently to you. Also, happy
to keep one to one link with anyone interested in making offsite
contributions to such meeting. Pl let me know, and I promise you
will not be disappointed. :). I do agree that civil society
networks much less than it should for such crucial meetings. <br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:102D32057C654DD581FB2E2E4CBD9992@userPC"
type="cite">
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"></span> </div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">Tks,</font></span></div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"></span> </div>
<div><span class="639003307-26022011"><font color="#0000ff"
face="Arial" size="2">M</font></span></div>
<blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr" class="OutlookMessageHeader" align="left"
lang="en-us"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">-----Original
Message-----<br>
<b>From:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Katitza Rodriguez<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:27 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>;
Marilia Maciel<br>
<b>Cc:</b> Anriette Esterhuysen<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting<br>
<br>
</font></div>
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 style="border-collapse: collapse;
font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"
class="Apple-style-span">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
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;
padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote">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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
executive director<br>
association for progressive communications<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">You received this message as a
subscriber on the list:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, visit:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a><br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>