[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Fri Jan 15 13:13:35 EST 2010
Hi Jeanette,
The proposal continues to bother me a lot in its possible wider
ramifications. So excuse me to seek some clarifications, and engage in a
bit of debate on the issue.
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 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.
But why this experiment and not many others that could be attempted.
Like MAG taking a more pro-active role of doing more inter-sessional
work, preparing background papers etc - stuff which has been a part of
many a proposals for IGF evolution, including from the IGC. I think this
thing being done in the name of an experiment can be very pre-emptive.
> 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.
The view that the MAG does and should only do the narrow work of setting
a very broad agenda presupposes that only one part of the WSIS mandate
for the IGF - acting as a policy discussion space (and that too in a
largely unstructured way) - is relevant and should ever be attempted.
This is what I mean by saying that the 'experiment' is pre-emptive.
Without MAG - in fact ,without a MAG that takes up a larger set of goals
and activities - these other parts of the IGF mandate can just not begun
to be addressed.
>
> 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.
Burdensome! Well that depends on what we look to the IGF to achieve. and
it is well known that there are very different views on this subject. So
why a certain view at one end of the spectrum is made to look like the
obvious and natural one, and processes being described as burdensome or
not in relation to that view of the IGF's objective.
Any serious difficult work can look burdensome. Helping along global
policy making can look burdensome, but to others it may be immensely
necessary, and also mandated by the WSIS. IGC has often sought that
IGF/MAG does inter-sessional work, form WGs, develop background
material, make more specific agenda with specific questions of policy
(IRP dynamic coalition's recent statement too seeks this)... any of this
may look burdensome, but still be very necessary to evolve towards. What
happens to all those demands of the IGC and many others? Why cant we do
some experiment towards this direction rather than in the opposite
direction to it?
> The annual rotation does involve a lot of work for both the
> secretariat and all stakeholder groups.
Now, I dont see why simply extending the term of the old MAG does not
solve that problem. Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is
at all necessary or not. That too an experiment done in the year when
some new 'text' on IGF processes etc may get written as a part of its
renewal.
A couple of different things are being mixed here which are needed to be
separated. First is the issue of nominating new members for the purpose
of rotation of MAG members. While I am for going ahead and doing the
rotation, even if we do not want to, simply extending the tenure of the
old MAG solves this problem. (I still dont have the answer to my
question whether there will be any MAG at all post Feb.)
So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do
with the rotation issue, does it.
Second is the wrapping up of this issue in the very tempting cover of
more openness. (As an aside I may mention that many who seem to support
the no-MAG experiment did not support the proposal that the discussion
list of MAG be public, which is a contradiction if the most pressing
objective here may just be 'openness'.) Greater openness and even
participation is a very different issue than doing away with a
representative body, which may be required to accomplish many task that
cannot be done by 'open houses'. We all know there are many such tasks,
some of them stated above as expectations expressed by the IGC from the
IGF process.
So if we indeed want to explore experiments and people's views and where
to move forward from here, we can as well be posing questions like
"Do you think IGF should accomplish certain objectives, beyond what it
may be achieving at present? If so. will it require a more structured
IGF, with an active core representative multistakeholder group steering
it?"
And in the spirit of these questions experiment with a few different
activities and ways of work in the MAG, instead of a
do-we-need-a-MAG-at-all experiment.
Parminder
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100115/41426d97/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
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list