[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Parminder]

Jeanette

My first task will be to emphatically restate my position on openness 
and participative-ness, because confusion about it will, I  think, 
continue to bedevil my attempts to make an entirely different point.

If I am to mention one thing I do professionally today, I would say it 
is to work for more open and participative governance systems. We work 
from grassroots levels to policy levels towards this objective, often in 
very radical manners.

We have always sought that MAG works in working groups co-opting 
interested people and groups to both develop the main sessions, and also 
background material/ papers etc for main themes. We have also sought 
that most, if not all, of MAG discussion takes place on an open list, 
which proposal incidentally did not find support from many of those who 
now support 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment, which is a bit strange. 
So while we seek more openness, we do look with considerable suspicion 
at 'openness' which may, or even be designed in order to, make the 
substantial evaporate. Obviously, we cannot afford to lose sight of the 
intrinsic purpose of a system/ organization in promoting an instrumental 
purpose. Anarchy, for instance, cannot be the outcome of increasing 
participation in governance systems.

I hope this convinces you that I am not arguing against more open and 
participative MAG meetings. We should discuss more about how to make the 
MAG system more open and participative. Lets start a thread on it. 
Meanwhile allow me to discuss an entirely different issue - the radical 
'do-we-even-need-a-MAG' experiment. While I myself saw this proposal as 
possibly clearing the way for the new structural possibility of no MAG 
or a greatly weakened MAG, you yourself confirmed that, in your words

    "This year's meetings following the February meeting could be
    regarded as an experiment to find out if a MAG is needed at all."


You would agree that this is a rather drastic experiment. Who chose to 
try this experiment (and why) rather than, and I repeat, other 
experiments more in keeping with IGC's earlier position to seek outcomes 
from MAG/ IGF system like background material/ papers on key themes for 
the IGF, greater specificity of key policy issues to be taken up, 
inter-sessional thematic work etc. (if you want I can flesh out how such 
experiments can be tried.) To propose this experiment over others, I beg 
to state, is an ideological position on one end of a large spectrum of 
views on what IGF should do. And, putting into effect this experiment 
would serve to preempt movement towards these greater possibilities, 
which in the view of many people are needed to be explored in order to 
meet the full mandate of the IGF.

 >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.

Yes, I think only a formally constituted  group, but with strong 
processes of openness and participation, can take up these broader 
responsibilities. As for doing our thinking on this, I must say that we 
need to do it now, and before we suggest structural experiments of the 
kind do-we-need-a-MAG. Obviously, thinking about what we expect a system 
to achieve, and how, should come before we meddle with its structure. 
This is the reason that I proposed that a particular kind of structural 
meddling/ change/ experiment presupposes a certain view of IGF's purpose 
and possibilities, whether we hold it consciously or not. And this view 
of IGF's purpose in my opinion is very one-sided.

Do you really think that an open house (if the do-we-need-MAG experiment 
succeeds, on whatever basis success is construed, that is all we will be 
left with) can really do the following tasks -

    * Do intensive discussion/ negotiation to come up with specific
      policy questions for IGF's consideration (As IRP DC statement
      seeks and IGC has also sought in the past)
    * Do elaborate linking and structuring of main sessions and
      workshops to get the best synergies out (again roughly from IRP DC
      statement, but also from IGC's earlier statements)
    * Discuss/ negotiate specific sub themes and discussion areas, for
      themes like CIR and openness which are politically volatile in
      order to have meaningful progress in these vital areas
    * Select panelists
    * Interact with other policy institutions (as per WSIS mandate)
    * Come up with background material on some themes, syntheisize some
      kind of outcomes of some IGF processes etc - things which IGC have
      called for earlier , and also needed to fulfill WSIS mandate of
      giving advice/ recommendations
    * There are many other things to possibly do for a group with clear
      membership and not an 'open house', like suggested  by Charity vis
      a vis remote participation, but I will stop here.


Do we realize that if a broadly representative mutlistakeholder group 
like the MAG did not do all this, who will really end up doing it and 
taking the decisions. Would that eventuality enhance openness and 
participation, or greatly curtail it? Can we suggest -do-we-need-MAG 
kind of experiments, nay actually take them up, without consideration to 
these basic issues?
 

parminder

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100116/e43d824d/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