[governance] Do we need a MAG?

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 27/05/2008, at 11:27 PM, Adam Peake wrote:

>>> 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.

Too many things to disagree with here, so I'll limit myself to three.   
First, this is the first public acknowledgment I've seen of the  
concerted back-room move to crush the Online Collaboration Dynamic  
Coalition, as part of which you and the other MAG members who had been  
members of its mailing list left en masse.  It is a shame that you  
couldn't have been open about your intentions at the time.

Second, you and those other MAG members not once responded to any of  
the specific questions, calls for comment and requests for help posted  
to the OCDC's mailing list (in fact, apart from you none ever posted  
to it at all); so I don't consider that qualifies as membership of a  
dynamic coalition.

Third, made no progress?  What progress has the Secretariat and MAG  
made by silently "stepping in" that the OCDC had not?  The OCDC's  
server at http://igf-online.net, despite being underutilised because  
of the Secretariat's refusal to promote it (and your filtering out of  
comments about it as the Secretariat's dutiful gatekeeper), remains  
the only community resource for the IGF (well, there's a Facebook  
group as well; linked from igf-online.net).

> 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.

Well, I think you've just drawn attention to one counter-example at  
least.

>>> 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.

For choosing MAG members, sure (although the preferable view is that  
the Secretary-General's powers lapsed once the IGF was established:  
see page 454 of my book).  But there are innumerable other decisions  
that significantly shaped the structure and processes of the IGF,  
particularly for its first meeting, that were down to Markus Kummer  
and Nitin Desai alone (as far as we know).

To choose one example at random, our ability to build a cohesive  
online community around the IGF that persists between meetings is  
impeded by the fact that membership of the IGF only exists in the form  
of a register of those attending its annual meetings in person, rather  
than for example in the manner of the old ICANN at large membership  
which was open to anyone from around the world.  This makes it  
impossible to communicate with the IGF community at large (to the  
extent that there even is one).

A short while ago Bertrand de la Chapelle sensibly called for the use  
of the plenary at intgovforum.org mailing list (that was created ages ago  
at my request, but never promoted or used by the Secretariat) for this  
purpose.  Even he was stolidly ignored.  So do tell me Adam, was this  
the Secretary-General's decision, or is it down to the Secretariat?

>>> 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.

Nitin Desai has always regarded and referred to himself as a member of  
the Secretariat.  I can refer you to specific points of the  
transcripts if you need me to.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
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