[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Parminder]

William Drake wrote:
>  I could see an argument that MAG needs to improve its working 
> methods, be more transparent, and reach earlier and better decisions 
> about the program (my notion of what that'd mean admittedly may be 
> idiosyncratic...we all have our preferences), but that's not a 
> strength issue. 
It is still a issue of MAG existing and being able to do something in 
its name through out the year, isnt it. That alone is at stake in the 
present context, of the proposal Jeanette made and also referred to as 
'do-we-even-need-the-MAG experiment.

> I still think the cross-cutting monitoring, analytical, 
> and information-sharing functions (especially with respect to 
> transparency, inclusion, development, my usuals) and inputs into 
> other processes tasked with actual decision making would be useful 
> additions.  Both activities could still be pursued by participants in 
> the IGF (as opposed to the IGF per se).  Alas, the former would 
> require resources and capacities which are not available, so the best 
> one can hope for is some piecemeal initiatives, e.g. the APC/COE/UNECE 
> effort, a development agenda collaboration, etc.  The latter is 
> partially addressed in other ways, e.g. CS and other non-state 
> participation in ICANN, OECD, etc. (BTW, ICANN's public comment period 
> on the AoC closes 31 January)
But the problem is; ICANN, by its own projection, does narrow technical 
policy,  and OECD isnt representative though its work affects everyone, 
more so in the absence of a global Internet policy system. That keeps 
the problem of ensuring IG is done in public interest unsolved at least 
for participants from non OECD countries .
>
> In sum, I don't see a rationale for a stronger MAG within the current 
> framework of an annual space for debate, what of real world 
> consequence this would improve. 
This can be taken as a expression of a basic failure of the IGF, which 
is why you wouldnt be enthusiastic about what happens to the MAG. Well, 
I can have some sympathy for that view. But that is not where the 
proponents of the present proposal come from.
> But sure, if the whole set-up and mission were different, of course 
> one would want a solid (which might not mean 
> 'stronger') multistakeholder body working closely with the secretariat.
What would that set-up and mission be in your view? Well, you may have 
lost hope (and perhaps for good reason) but others may still be trying 
that the IGF could amount to something more than an annual conference 
(especially those less enthusiastic about the other forums you mentioned 
ICANN, OECD etc).

As for the difference between 'more solid' and 'stronger', it may only 
be my poor English that I cant make much difference between the two :) . 
On the other hand, for the present, I only sought that MAG just does 
keep existing in the same fashion as at present

Parminder




>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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