[governance] Do we need a MAG?

[Adam Peake]

>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]
>>  No, that will centralise (even) more power in the unrepresentative
>>  Secretariat.  In my work on remote participation, I've seen how the
>  > Secretariat very shrewdly picks and chooses what volunteer help to
>>  embrace and what to silently shun and thereby sideline.
>
>A major issue, of course.


Jeremy, you and Kieren couldn't agree, had made no progress, your 
dynamic coalition (I was a member) was a mess.  So the secretariat 
and MAG stepped in.


>But can you provide me with an instance of when the MAG did anything to
>check the power of the Secretariat?


Milton, It doesn't help when your phrase questions in this way.


>  I am open to facts.


Have you read the MAG mailing list records and the meeting reports?

The secretariat takes contributions, summarizes them and publishes 
them for comment. The MAG comments, pretty much anyone (at least 
English speakers, sorry to say) can comment. The process of taking 
contributions then continues (idea of rolling documents.)  When MAG 
members are unhappy with the way a meeting has been summarized or a 
report etc written then we can and do comment, and if the objection's 
sensible changes are made. And sometimes the MAG screws up 
(Parminder's concern over how access was described in the programme 
last year, which I insist was not important and an accident, but he 
feels strongly otherwise, but we disagree... was a screw up) and 
misses things, but nothing deliberate or underhand to the best of my 
knowledge/recollection. I think you can see the contributions 
reflected in the outcomes (the annual meeting, the themes, speakers, 
workshops etc.)

The secretariat will take names for speakers, and seems to have come 
discretion here.  It may invite some people it thinks important, and 
does not always consult with MAG before doing that. Sometimes this 
seems to be because of time pressures, or just opportunities (the 
person's in the room, ask them).  This is the only area I have ever 
felt uncomfortable with the secretariat's "powers", and it might not 
be that anything bad was happening, selecting speakers is sensitive. 
I think it will be less of an issue this year now we've more time.

It seems the secretariat may have some influence (perhaps a lot) in 
what names are put forward to the secretary general for MAG rotation, 
I imagine given the need for balance and also increasing gender and 
developing country representation someone will need to recommend 
slates of some kind.  I doubt there's anyone in New York with 
knowledge of the people and organizations able to make good 
decisions.  As we seem to agree there should be an open called for 
names, someone has to receive those names and develop a slate. I 
don't see how the MAG can check the secretariat's powers in this, in 
the end it's up to the community.


>  > It is also easier for the Secretariat to palm off the recommendations
>  > of the open consultations to the Secretary-General (a fiction, of
>>  course) so that it can disclaim responsibility for the dismissal of
>>  those recommendations.
>
>Yes, that obviously happens now. And the MAG as far as I know never
>issues any recommendations.


As Avri said.  Not a fiction. It's the way the UN works.  Governments 
asked the UN Secretary-General to convene it and convene it he does.

<http://intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf> See 
paragraph 3, and then read the press release about rotation.

And this : <http://www.intgovforum.org/AGD/MAG.Summary.16.05.2008.final.pdf>?




>So I am unclear as to how this point bears
>on the question. When has there been a clear resolution of the advisory
>group? When has the Secretariat followed such a resolution when it
>didn't really want to?
>
>>  Harder for it to ignore a clear resolution of
>>  the Advisory Group, whose numbers and constituencies are known and
>>  fixed.  (Still not impossible, though; case in point, the Chairman
>>  shutting down discussion within the Advisory Group of any variation to
>  > the 50% representation of governments.)



Note Chair, not Secretariat. Not the same thing.


>But note that this shutdown occurred in the context of a
>representational quota for the MAG. If there were no MAG, there would be
>no such debates.


Thanks,

Adam


>  > For all its manifest faults, at least the Advisory Group, now that it
>>  has increased its transparency thorough reports of its meetings and
>>  mailing list summaries, is somewhat more accountable than the
>>  Secretariat alone.
>
>I guess the conclusion I would draw from your comments is, if we want to
>have a MAG it should not be such a loose advisory group but should have
>formally defined powers in relation to the Secretariat. If the MAG does
>not have those powers, it is definitely not worth all the political fuss
>that surrounds it.
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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

____________________________________________________________
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