[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[William Drake]

Hi again,

On Jan 18, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Parminder wrote:

> 
> 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.

Ok sure, apparently there's an existence issue (surprises me, didn't anticipate that governments et al could be so zen); can we set aside strength then and contemplate?  It would be interesting to hear an elaborated argument for non-existence to complement the non-non-existence position, might help people get their heads around this.  Is anyone prepared to argue that open planning meetings could do just as well?
> 
>> 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,  

I strongly disagree and am surprised to hear you say this, but maybe we should hold that for another time.

> and OECD isnt representative though its work affects everyone, more so in the absence of a global Internet policy system.

Which strikes me as a pretty good argument for active engagement...

> That keeps the problem of ensuring IG is done in public interest unsolved at least for participants from non OECD countries .

Depends on what we're talking about, there's a variety of mechanisms and issue areas with a variable geometry of developing country participation (ICANN included).
>> 
>> 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.

Well no, one can wish the thing had been different without coming to that conclusion.  I'm glad there's an IGF and think it's valuable, AND I don't feel the MAG needs to be stronger.

>> 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).

I meant as described in the article quote, more or less.
> 
> 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

Ok, but that wasn't what Jeremy's draft says, which is where we started and what I was inquiring about.  So maybe it'd be good to substitute language calling for the MAG to keep existing, if there's consensus for that.  But first I and maybe others would like to hear the arguments on both sides fleshed out...

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