[governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?

Thu Mar 23 09:11:00 EST 2006

Dear Bill,

Thanks for your comments. I am more than happy to clarify, as there seems to
be some misunderstanding here.

*On Thematic Working Groups*

I was among the first to recommend the creation of thematic working groups,
and to push for the IGF to be much more than a mere annual event. I have
said it publicly on every occasion for a long time, including in Malta,
during the first consultations and on the list and I certainly have not
changed minds. You also know that I put a lot of insistence on the
sub-element of paragraph 72 dealing with monitoring the embodiment of WSIS
principles in other internet governance mechanisms.

We are all absolutely on the same page here and your formulation
suggesting I have become suddenly a proxy for "industrialized country
governments and business sector" vision of a limited IGF is a bit
surprising, if not somewhat misleading.

That aside, I nonetheless take your point that mentionning only those three
initial elements might send a wrong signal and something could be added to
the list of missions for the MAG to more explicitely refer to the
facilitation of the creation of thematic working groups. See proposal below
(and more on the mmwg list).

*On the role of such small groups : facilitation or decision-making ?*

This gives me the opportunity to clarify another issue. The point we
probably have somewhat different views upon is the conception of what the
role of such limited groups is, in this case the MAG, but that was also the
case for the WGIG.

There are two possible visions here :
- either the small group has more power than the larger group it emanates
from (in this case the Forum participants themselves), and the small group
is a sort of representative sub-body that takes formal decisions on behalf
of the larger group
- or the smaller group is more a facilitator, a sort of microcosm of the
larger group that helps the larger group organize itself, and come to
decisions in a participatory way. And yes, that can include the small group
helping draft proposals for further organization of the work.

In the first case, the small group is equivalent to a formal Bureau or an
expert group, and adopts recommendations and decisions on its own. In the
second case, the smaller group catalyzes the rough consensus, via
recognized, open and transparent procedures, including iterative refining of
drafts that are ultimately adopted by the larger group.

The first approach remains a type of representative democracy structure,
only with a different way to select the "representatives" and a different
pool of actors to choose from. Only the second format in my opinion is
really exploring the new mechanisms for participative governance that are
needed in the context of the IGF.

In any case, the wording of the MMWG contribution clearly goes in this
second direction as it says :

2. [] We oppose the establishment of potentially "heavy" top-down structures
like a "Bureau" or a "Council", as these could bureaucratize the IGF process
and reduce its flexibility and efficiency.
3. Members of the MMG believe that a lightweight Programme Committee would
be sufficient to kick-start the process.
4. the Programme Committee should be replenished with new members on an
annual basis.

I recognize the MMWG contribution mentions the MAG making "final decisions"
on the establishment of the list of themes. But this is probably a necessity
for Agenda-setting because there is a deadline for any anual event and
decisions are required rapidly given the proximity of the first Athens
event. On other issues, I still think the MAG should rather play a
facilitation/catalytic role rather than a  truly decision-making one.

*How this applies to the MAG's mandate*

In the context of the IGF, this means the MAG should indeed "facilitate the
bottom-up formation of Discussion Groups or initiatives" (formulation of the
MMWG contribution) and the elaboration of "transparent procedures and
criteria for the formation and recognition of such groups and initiatives as
well as how they can propose the results of their activities as input for
consideration in the annual meetings".

I agree this could be a fourth item in the mission of the MAG and will
modify the previous mail accordingly.

The only difference with the formulation of the MMWG submission is that the
MAG would facilitate the elaboration of such procedures rather than
establish them itself.  The MAG should of course play a leading role but a
facilitation one rather than a decision-making one.  And in any case, a
discussion on the principle of the creation of working groups should be
strongly advocated at the May consultations.

This specific aspect could be a subject for a new, more detailed MMWG
contribution for the May meeting, or be included in a more general
submission on the mandate of the MAG.

Best

Bertrand

On 3/22/06, William Drake <drake at hei.unige.ch> wrote:
>
>  Hi Bertrand,
>
> As stated, the purposes you list are consistent with what the
> industrialized country governments and the private sector have been
> pushing.  They want to limit the forum to just an annual gab fest, we talk
> about something and go home, and a MAG focused only on planning Athens would
> fit with that orientation.  But the caucus in Tunis and CS folks more
> generally have pushed for a broader, multilevel configuration in which the
> IGF is an ongoing process of dialogue, analysis, and capacity building.  In
> this formulation, there could be working groups and other initiatives (I
> advocate one on application of the WSIS Principles to extant governance
> mechanisms) working primarily virtually, and any outputs they might
> devise---reports, recommendations, whatever---could potentially be brought
> into the annual conferences, either just for information or for possible
> discussion/action.  The MAG presumably would have to play a role in
> supporting these developments.  Hence, in the MMWG input agreed last
> month, we said, inter alia,
>
> "6. The Programme Committee [now MAG] should facilitate the bottom up
> formation of 'Discussion Groups on Internet Governance' (DGIGs) on various
> aspects of Internet governance, in particular with regard to the issues
> listed in Section V of the WGIG Report. The Programme Committee should
> establish transparent procedures and criteria for the formation and
> recognition of any of such groups or initiatives stakeholders may wish to
> organize on relevant topics.   All stakeholders should be able to propose
> groups on a bottom-up basis.  Any such groups should be open to all
> stakeholders that may wish to participate, transparent, and based primarily
> on virtual collaboration.  They could engage in a range of activities, e.g.
> inclusive dialogue, monitoring and analysis of trends, conducting studies,
> and developing recommendations for action.  Furthermore the Program
> Committee should also define transparent procedures and criteria according
> to which such groups could propose any results of their activities as
> possible inputs for consideration in the annual meetings."
>
> Perhaps it was just an oversight, or are you now saying you disagree with
> this approach?
>
> I hope that at least some of the CS people who end up on the MAG will
> support what we've argued for prior.  It will be an uphill effort, but if
> the restrictive model of the IGF goes unchallenged and is implemented
> without debate, the potential value of the IGF will be limited, and the work
> we did over several years in calling for a forum that could be used to
> monitor, assess, and promote dialogue on the conduct of IG in various
> contexts (as opposed to just talking about individual issues) will arguably
> have been wasted.
>
> Thanks for clarifying,
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:
> governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]*On Behalf Of *Bertrand de La Chapelle
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 22, 2006 12:07 PM
> *To:* Governance
> *Subject:* [governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?
>
>  Dear all,
>
> Here are a few preliminary comments on what the role(s) of the MAG could
> be.
>
> *Purpose of the MAG*
>
> The MAG is established for this first Athens event. A new one should be
> put in place for next year.
>
> Its role is to help organize the Athens event in terms of substance. This
> could involve at least three elements :
>
> - *Agenda-setting* : facilitating the establishment of the final list of
> themes. In this context, the MAG role is less to make a final decision but
> to catalyze and reveal the rough consensus (cf. Avri's previous comment that
> rough consensus does not appear on its own but must be catalyzed).
> This includes, when issues are contentious, suggesting formulations that are
> acceptable to all parties in order to allow them to get on the Agenda
> - *Identification of actors* : help identify possible speakers and
> relevant organizations that should/must be involved on a given issue. This
> could mean launching and managing a "call for speakers" on each issue
> retained on the Agenda after the May meeting and a "call for identication of
> already involved players" in order to form the introductory panels on each
> issue.
> - *Promoting inclusiveness* : it is of the utmost importance that
> participation in the Athens meeting involves actors from developing
> countries and groups that were not involved directly in the WSIS process but
> are relevant to the issues. MAG members in that respect should play an
> active role in advertising the Athens Forum in other spaces (a sort of
> ambassadorial role :-) and identifying ways and means (including financial
> with the help of foundations or other supporters) to facilitate
> participation of such actors
>
> In a certain way, the members of the MAG would act as "Trustees" to
> guarantee the embodiment of the principles of multi-stakeholderism in the
> first meeting of the IGF.
>
> Comments on these suggestions are of course highly welcome. I thought
> these elements might also be helpful for the nomcom to select people that
> could provide useful competences in that respect.
>
> Best
>
> Bertrand
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20060323/3042259c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance