[governance] Summary Report of IGF MAG available

Sat Mar 1 03:56:11 EST 2008

Hi,

On MAG composition, Parminder¹s ³Not that things would have changed if we
had said so² seems like an understatement.  Obviously there are pressures
being brought to bear offline that significantly trump anything we might
say, so stomping our feet rather than pussyfooting¹ by specifying exactly
how many bodies from which groups we think there should be probably would
have just been picking losing fights.  Saying CS is underrepresented was
adequate for our main concern and obviously, rectifying it would mean taking
from overrepresented groups.  That said, ³While not perfect, the balance of
the current MAG was felt to be reasonable.²  So voila.

Robin says there are four Russian govt advisors.  Not being on MAG, I don¹t
know where she¹s seeing this, would appreciate clarification.  The list on
the website still shows the Brazilian contingent.

Let me raise a different issue: the program.  I thought it a bit odd at the
consultation when Nitin switched agenda items 3 and 4 around, so that we
spent a big chunk of time after lunch hearing ³reports from related
activities² before finally getting around, with just one hour left, to what
I¹d have thought should be the main focus of a consultation, ³The 2008
Meeting.²  After the Indian presentation of the conference site there was
not much time left, people were tired, and many had gone when it was finally
the moment to talk about what stakeholders might like to see in the main
sessions.  In this environment, we introduced the caucus¹ four proposals,
APC, Switzerland, Brazil offered theirs, there were a few shorter comments,
and then we were out of time.  There was no possibility for serious follow
on discussion concerning any of the proposals (although Brazil, Switzerland,
and APC did indicate support for the Development Agenda concept).

Now looking at the MAG summary, I see no connection between our proposals
and the two schedules under consideration.  Certainly the words enhanced
cooperation, net neutrality, development agenda, and transparency/inclusion
do not appear. In contrast, ³the next billion² and ³managing² (not
governing, per ISOC circa 2003) the net are on both.  So voila.  Interesting
process.

Hopefully the packed schedules of main sessions will also accommodate a
fairly unrestricted number of workshops, as these would seem the only option
to pursue any of our proposals.

Best,

Bill

On 3/1/08 8:25 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

> 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 group¹s 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 etcLet them not do
> anything about this, but let them know that¹s 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
> ³However, 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.²
> Note the part the group was informed¹ 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 SG¹s Special Advisor, we may think has the greater influence on SG¹s
> 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 SG¹s 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 bureau¹ 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.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080301/68392daa/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