[governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

Sat Mar 1 02:25:43 EST 2008

Our original draft statement did say clearly that governments are
over-represented, and that this should be corrected. But there was advice on
the list against saying so. which later extended to that we should not say
anything about any other group's representation and just say CS is
under-represented. 

Not that things would have changed if we had said so, but it is important
for CS to be upfront and say these things when the occasion arises and not
pussyfoot as we often tend to do. 

We can still write to them that gov representation is steadily climbing
though many different means, and this is  a cause of concern etc.Let them
not do anything about this, but let them know that's what we think...

Can MAG members tell us if the issue of co-chair was discussed in the MAG. 

The worst part is that where the summary talks about 50 percent gov
representation it says 

"However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50%
of its members  proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups,
would be maintained."

Note the part 'the group was informed'. what does that mean!! Who informed
the group. Rest of the summary is written in form of what the group itself
seem to have deliberated and decided. but this is about something the group
having been told  . BY WHOM

Can the MAG members who were present in Geneva shed some light on it? 

Also those among us who have been of the opinion that MAG should stay as
purely an advisory body to UN SG, and have no substantive identity /
authority of its own, would note that we can keep expecting more and more of
these diktats from unknown quarters, which none of us can ever even reach
out to, much less influence. Putting too much faith in one person, Nitin
Desai,  who as SG's Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence
on SG's decisions has limits, and may backfire when there is a change in
guard. In any case there are many others who have great influence with SG's
office and that is showing.. 

In not calling for a more independent MAG, CS has lost a major opportunity.
Now it may be too late to even call for it. 

An unnecessary semantics of what would a bureau mean took away all the
energy though those who called for a self-empowered MAG said a few times
that there is no insistence on the name 'bureau' and whatever goes with it.
So now you have your MAG which is government loaded because we ourselves
colluded in handing over all powers to the UN SG office. No point ruing it.

Parminder 

  _____  

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2008 6:38 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Subject: Re: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

This point concerns me also. And especially when the "special advisors" are
added into the mix, there is an even higher percentage of govt
representation. For example there are 4 representatives from the Russian
govt listed as special advisors. I'm not sure why a non-host country would
need such disproportionate influence in the process. But I wasn't able to go
to Geneva to participate in the meetings, so I don't have a good sense as to
whether such a high percentage of govt representation of the MAG is a fait
de complis or can be challenged. I'd be curious to hear what the MAG members
who were in Geneva think about this.

Thanks,

Robin

On Feb 29, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

The most telling point here appears to be

>However, the group was informed that the current balance in the MAG, of 50%
of its members

>proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, would be
maintained.

Is there any way to challenge whether 50% government is really
multistakeholder?

Ian Peter

Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd

PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

www.internetmark2.org

www.nethistory.info

  _____  

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: 01 March 2008 04:36
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; a2k-igf at ipjustice.org;
Openstds at ipjustice.org; bill-of-rights at ipjustice.org;
privacy-coalition at lists.apc.org
Subject: [governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

Summary report of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group meeting in Geneva
this week is on the IGF website:

http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v1.pdf

Info on rotation of MAG members and plans for Hyderabad in the report.

Best,

Robin

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA

p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.1/1303 - Release Date: 28/02/2008
12:14

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.2/1304 - Release Date: 29/02/2008
08:18

____________________________________________________________

You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

governance at lists.cpsr.org

To be removed from the list, send any message to:

governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:

http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA

p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080301/facf266f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance