[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Parminder,


Parminder 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.

I have no problem with that, on the contrary.

> 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 

You are linking two things that seem to me indirectly connected: the 
task(s) of the MAG and the selection of its membership. The idea to open 
the MAG for its two meetings in May and June seemed a good idea as it 
catches 2 birds with one stone. This way, we increase the transparency 
of the MAG's work and we avoid the rotation process in the face of an 
uncertain future. Everybody can join and help organize the next meeting. 
Hence, opening up the meeting shouldn't have an impact on the MAG's 
agenda or tasks.

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.

After 4 years of MAG I would say that the interpretation of the MAG's 
responsibilities depends to some degree on its (rotating) membership. I 
can well imagine that the MAG or any other future advisory group might 
consider taking over other tasks. If I understand you correctly, 
Parminder, you imply that only a formally constituted group with a 
exlusive membership could take over broader responsibilities? If so, I 
havn't thought about this enough to agree or disagree with you on this.


>>
>> 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?

I remember that we have discussed this issue before. I also remember 
that I disagreed with your view on the current state of things. In my 
view, the regional IGFs are evolving into a bottom-up process of 
inter-sessional meetings. The fact that they are geographically 
organized doesn't mean that there is no link between them. What I like 
about these regional efforts is that they were not centrally organized 
but emerged from local initiatives. I think this is a much better way of 
  creating a dense network of IGF related processes and structures than 
to  empower a body such as the MAG to do so.

>> 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. 

As I said on the MAG list, I would find it unacceptable if the MAG 
simply extended its term without asking those who nominated the present 
members in the first place. The little reaction on the MAG list suggests 
that not many members share this point of view. I'd assume that the 
caucus would have loudly protested if we had just announced that we 
wouldn't rotate this year but just serve another term. Rightly so in my 
opinion.


Why should it entail an experiment to see if MAG is
> at all necessary or not. 

The question is whether or not the MAG needs to be an exclusive club. 
You attended the meeting last September. It did work well, didn't it?


> So, the 'do we even need a MAG' experiment seems to not have much to do 
> with the rotation issue, does it.  

It does also reflect the open meeting in September. It is good to get 
those who organize workshops and main session fully and early involved.

I leave at that. I think others should chip in as well.

jeanette
> 
> 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