[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Katitza Rodriguez]

Dear all:

I fully support the open approach outline below. Knowing the process  
in advance, will give us (civil society) enough time to work in our  
own process and ways to organize and coordinate ourselves, as well as  
to include the voices of those who will not be able to attend the  
meeting (remote participation)/online consultation.

 From a civil society point of view, the process of selection of  
candidates is a good opportunity to share knowledge with other  
stakeholders (and among us) on the human rights  concerns we want to  
highlight in those main sessions in a more granular detail. We are  
able to influence in the issues we care about in multi-layer levels,  
and learn the agenda of the other stakeholders (which is useful).  
Interaction among all the stakeholders (even if we widely disagree,  
which in fact is OK), can give us unprecedented ways to move forward  
the human rights agenda we want to highlight.

My 2 cents,

Katitza



On Jan 14, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> the MAG started discussing the issue of rotation for this year. Some  
> people were in favor of an extended term for the present membership  
> because it is not clear if the IGF's mandate will be extended and,  
> should it be extended, under what terms. It could be that the MAG  
> meeting in May would be the only one for the new MAG.
>
> I argued that the MAG or the secretariat should not decide on this  
> matter without consulting the various stakeholder groups. This  
> afternoon, Markus and I discussed the options and we came up with a  
> third solution. Markus just sent the following message to the MAG  
> list and asked me to forward it to the caucus list as well. I expect  
> the caucus will be happy about the proposed solution?
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Jeanette has got a point! It might not go down well  if any decision  
> were taken in this matter without consulting the broader community!  
> However, as there is a distinct possibility that a renewed MAG will  
> hold one meeting only, there is also a strong argument against  
> launching the heavy rotation machinery just for the sake of this  
> principle.
>
> I consulted with Jeanette and going through the pros and cons of  
> both approaches we both came to the conclusion that there might be a  
> third way. We both wondered whether there was any need for a closed  
> meeting at all in May. As last September's planning meeting went  
> rather well, we wondered whether we could not prepare most of this  
> year's meeting in an open process. By doing so, we would also take  
> into account the calls for more inclusiveness and transparency made  
> during the consultation in Sharm.
>
> The MAG would thus meet a last time next month and set the agenda  
> for the Vilnius meeting. The programme could be fleshed out in two  
> open planning meetings in May and June.
>
> This could also be an experiment in view of a possible renewal of  
> the mandate. Should the mandate be renewed, any decision on how to  
> continue could be taken in light of this experiment.
>
> Please let me know what you think about this possible approach.
>
> Best regards
> Markus
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t