[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sun Jan 17 00:25:34 EST 2010
Jeanette,
Not at all to intrude on your weekend, so please respond to this, if you
will, on Monday. However, I will keep this discussion up because in my
view it hides much deeper implication then appear obvious.
I continue to confused both by your messages and the emails in the MAG
list as to why a distinction is not being made between ''repeating the
last Sept planning meeting experiment' and holding 'a MAG + meeting'.
They are different, and we must discuss this specific point.
I am all for MAG plus meetings, and my second email to yesterday made
it clear. However, and i also analyzed that, last Sept planning meeting
was pointedly a non-MAG meeting - it was *just* a planning meeting (a
new term and format was coined). Now this non MAG meeting, I repeat, had
no authority to do anything with the program document already written
up, while in all earlier years even up to the Sept meeting program
documents could be fine-tuned or even amended. This is the crucial
difference.
Now, I could have taken that this is just a confusion, and your new
proposal always meant real MAG+ meetings in May and June 2010. However,
you keep saying that this experiment came out of very pragmatic
considerations of problems associated with extending the present MAG's
tenure. To quote your email
>Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be experimental and
made a choice of experimental >options. This is not the case. The
experiment was born out of a specific problem: a full rotation
circle for >one or at best two meetings this year seemed a lot of
work, yet simply extending the term of the current >members would
most likely evoked criticism.
This to me clearly implies that in proposing what you and Markus
describe as the 'third way' and I describe as a drastic experiment, MAG
will *not* be renewed after the term of the present MAG ends after the
Feb meeting. That is presented as the only reason for trying this
'experiment' or third way. So there will be *no* MAG post Feb. This
obviously means the May and June meetings will not be MAG plus but open
houses, like existing open consultations. This also corresponds to the
fact that Sept 2009 meeting was not a MAG (or MAG+) meeting, and you do
keep referring to the repeating of 'Sept 2009 experiment'. If I am not
right in this deduction please correct me.
If MAG doesn't sit after Feb, what we will have a very sketchy and
broad themes, and most likely little or no change in the
structure/format, for IGF - 5, and that would be final. Nothing can
change after that, because what is written by MAG can only be changed by
MAG (this was kind of said by the chair during last May meeting). In all
the earlier years, both substance and structure of IGF was discussed
throughly till almost the end, which gave opportunity for more elaborate
themes and structural evolutions. This wont be possible this time.
That is *the* main issue. And IGC and other CS groups (APC, IRP-DC etc)
have been calling for both more specific and elaborated themes and
questions and structural evolutions for the next IGF. So how does the
new proposal serve our interests is completely unclear to me.
But if the MAG will be preserved after Feb, by just extending the tenure
of the present MAG I dont see what problem has been solved by this
'third way' or experiment. If the proposal is just to have real MAG+
meetings in May and June, why do we say we are repeating Sept 2009
experiment which was not a MAG plus meeting, but simply a planning
meeting. To repeat, for it to be MAG or MAG plus meeting the MAG's
authority to make substantive changes to the program document should be
'alive and existing' at the time of the meeting, and possible to be
exercised.
Sorry if these are too many questions, but I really confused.
Ok, my one specific question, that remained unanswered in the MAG list,
is - will there be any MAG at all after Feb this year or not, as per the
present proposal? What do you know about it?
Parminder
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> Hi Parminder,
>
>
>
>
>> My first task will be to emphatically restate my position on openness
>> and participative-ness,
>
> I have never had any doubt about your position on openness in general
> and I do understand that your issue is with forms and implications of
> openness.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I hope you don't mean to accuse me of setting up something to make
> substance evaporate.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I would say it is not clear right now whether or not this is going to
> be a drastic experiment. Opening up some or all MAG meetings might not
> change that much after all. It is certainly not meant to be a drastic
> experiment, it builds on the experience of the open planning meeting
> in September. You say in your other email that its background was a
> bit odd. True, but I would say that except for the "breakout groups"
> we formed around the main session topics not much was different from
> an ordinary MAG meeting. The closer to the actual IGF meeting, the
> more operational the MAG meetings have been over the last years. My
> guess is that even without this experiment to open MAG meetings, we
> would have considered an open planning meeting for all workshop
> organizers before the next IGF.
>
> 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.
>
> My answer to your question is super pragmatic and won't satisfy you.
> Your question seems to imply that we wanted to be experimental and
> made a choice of experimental options. This is not the case. The
> experiment was born out of a specific problem: a full rotation circle
> for one or at best two meetings this year seemed a lot of work, yet
> simply extending the term of the current members would most likely
> evoked criticism.
>
>
> (if you want I can flesh out how such
>> experiments can be tried.) To propose this experiment over others,
>
> This experiment is not privileged over others. I repeat, we didn't
> choose among various experiments. On the other hand, I don't expect
> this to be the last experiment of incremental change we'll see should
> the IGF get a new mandate. On the contrary, so far I think the IGF
> has been almost constantly changing, and I do hope that this spirit of
> trying out structures and procedures will be maintained. I am also
> optimistic that we will or would see changes with regard to outcomes.
> It might start with more semantic artifices than substantive outcomes
> but even this would be open to change. It seems crucial to avoid
> accelerating such developments because skeptics need to be convinced
> as well.
>
>
> 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.
>
> I beg to differ. First, if many people think it was a bad idea to open
> MAG meetings, a new MAG can be formed under the new mandate. Second, I
> am not convinced that the political weight and responsibility of the
> MAG depends solely or mainly on the question of openness. The crucial
> question in my view is whether or not stakeholders bring their issues
> to the IGF and accept it as a venue for fleshing out practical
> solutions. (I understand Fouad's email as a request to discuss how
> such a goal can be achieved.)
>
> The more political relevant the IGF, the more relevant are the
> preparatory meetings and vice versa. The MAG per se is not important
> and, I think, cannot simply be declared to gain importance.
>
> My guess is that we have very different opinions on the MAG's sources
> of authority and relevance. For me, the MAG, open or closed, can only
> do substantive things if there is a broad consensus "out there" among
> the stakeholders that more substance would a good thing. The formal
> rules and structures of the MAG pale in comparison.
>
> And now I plan to have a weekend :-)
>
> jeanette
>
>
>>
>> >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
>>>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20100117/40f09adc/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