[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi,

we discussed some of the implications you mention below.

This year's meetings following the February meeting could be regarded as 
an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all. Perhaps open 
planning meetings such as the one we had in September 2009 are 
sufficient for setting the agenda; perhaps the need for some sort of 
steering committee does arise, perhaps not.

Since it is unclear whether after 2010 there will be a new mandate for 
an IGF and if so, whether the new IGF will continue to have a 
secretariat and a non-bureau like preparatory structure, this year's 
preparation seems to be a good opportunity to experiment with processes 
that are more open and transparent and less burdensome. The annual 
rotation does involve a lot of work for both the secretariat and all 
stakeholder groups.

jeanette

Parminder wrote:
> Hi All
> 
> I just now posted the following message to the IGF MAG list. More 
> openness is always welcome but there are also some larger structural 
> questions about the mandate and efficacy of the IGF which worry me since 
> the proposal of 'only open meetings' has been made in connection with 
> the need or not of renewing the MAG. I will posit these larger questions 
> a little later while I share my mentioned email. Parminder
> 
> (Disclosure: I am some kind of a member of the MAG system and am funded 
> for attending its meeting. However, to be fair to me, I was also funded 
> to attend the planning meeting in Sept which was *not* a MAG meeting.)
> 
> Dear Markus and others,
> 
> A couple of questions come to my mind regarding the new proposal which 
> could merit some discussion.
> 
> Does this mean that there will be no MAG post Feb? (I understand that 
> MAG could exist while there be only open  planning meeting as in Sept last.)
> 
> If so, have we looked at all the implication - tangible and intangible - 
> of there being no MAG in existence for a whole year in the run-up to an 
> IGF meeting, and during the meeting?
> 
> Does this in fact suggest that we could anyway more or less do without a 
> MAG, and a couple of open preparatory/ planning meetings in Geneva, 
> outcomes of which are culled/interpreted by the secretariat, is all that 
> is needed to hold the IGF and comply with the WSIS requirements?
> 
> Does trying out this practice in the year of possible structural changes 
> to the IGF - possibly taken up along with its renewal if it comes - can 
> have even more special significance?
> 
> Thanks and best regards
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 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