[governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?

[William Drake]

Hi Bertrand,

To be clear, I didn't suggest you'd become a proxy for the industrialized countries and business, I said that what you listed as the MAG's functions is consistent with what they would want it to do.  Not quite the same thing, no dark intentionality implied, and I did add that perhaps your omission of the ongoing process/working groups formulation was just an oversight.  I gather it was, so I'm glad you clarified, and yes, based on your response, we are indeed on the same page.

On your new points, I too would favor the facilitator orientation for the MAG, with the caveat that this could leave it more open to political monkeying around by the big dogs than if it had some small measure of independent authority.  On the other hand, realistically, anything the MAG recommends will have to be approved by the powers that be anyway.  This means, inter alia, that pressing the case for the ongoing process/working groups formulation will take some work, the arguments for will have to be nicely laid out so that the approach cannot be dismissed out of hand on the basis of misrepresentations, i.e. CS is pushing for a big heavy machinery with budgetary implications, etc.  We already got a taste of that, big time, in the February consultation, and one should anticipate more of the same.  The only tool at our disposal is soft power, so it will be essential that CS participants in the MAG can articulate the vision and respond in a cogent and diplomatic way to the push back that will come.

Cheers,

Bill


-----Original Message-----
From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:11 PM
To: William Drake
Cc: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Purpose and mandate of the MAG ?


  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/20060323/0e771b2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance