[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[Parminder]

Avri Doria wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2010, at 08:06, Parminder wrote:
>
>   
>> i meant to say, 'erosion in the decision making capacity of the MAG'
>>     
>
> >From where I sit, I don't see this - and I have been observing since day 1.  If anything i think its decision making capacity has grown.
>   
Avri, This is said in the middle of, and strictly only with regard to, a 
rather intense debate regarding what has been described as 
do-we-even-need-a-MAG experiment. An experiment which is not just an 
idea but has taken a rather strong force, as you would have followed on 
the MAG list. The way towards checking (proving) this hypothesis is to 
have only one MAG meeting in Feb, and have the other two meetings only 
as planning meetings following the Sept 2009 'experiment'. The logic 
presented is that apparently we really do not need these 2nd and 3rd MAG 
meetings and open house assemblies would be enough.

I repeat, I never said anything about erosion of the decision making 
capacity over the years (though decision-making capacity certainly was 
not there in Sept 2009, because there was no MAG meeting and in this 
regard nothing on the program sheet could be substantially changed, 
though such changes could be, and were, made till and during Sept MAG 
meetings in the earlier years.)

My comments are strictly within the above context. And i do think that 
if this group primarily engages with the IGF, such an important move vis 
a vis the only structured element of the IGF, i.e. MAG, should evoke 
much greater engagement, than, in my humble opinion, has been seen on 
this list.

It has been decided that this issue will also be put for the 
consideration of the open consultation in Feb. Is IGC going to make a 
statement on this issue?

Parminder


> While it is true that the New York office of the UN makes the final decisions, it is the MAG that makes all the decisions regarding the program in its recommendations.  And I do not know of an instance where the UNSG's offices or the DESA USG has contradicted those recommendation.
>
> I have watched the MAG carefully deliberate the options, taking into account the comments from contributions and the consultations.  And even when the secretariat has made recommendations to the MAG on certain scheduling options based on its understanding from the contributions, the MAG has felt free to shoot these down or alter them, as the consensus in the MAG wished.
>
> >From my view, I have seen the MAG remain consistent in its capacity to make decisions under the consensus building leadership of its chair.  Some people may not be happy when their ideas and suggestions are not adopted by the MAG, but when that has happened it has been the consensus of the MAG that made the recommendation.
>
> a.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20100118/75fa2c4c/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