[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Marilia Maciel]

I agree with Parminder. The MAG is as relevant as its members want (and
strive for) it to be. Just like the IGF, the MAG has room for improvement
and I believe we should collective put pressure for these improvements to
happen if the mandate is renewed.


There are several issues that the MAG could become involved with. In the
Remote Participation Working Group´s taking stocks document, we suggest a
more proactive role of the MAG in remote participation. Putting in place
remote participation is a huge task and it definitely needs multistakeholder
involvement. The MAG would have an important role to play, if the body
wishes to do it.

For now, the extension of the mandate + holding MAG meetings seems like the
best option.

Best regards
Marília



On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center of Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100115/2dfa5998/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