[governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG

Mon Jan 18 12:56:03 EST 2010

Dar all,

Following the intense exchanges on the list in the past week regarding the
MAG, it may be useful to clarify the four different (albeit complementary)
issues that are being discussed, in order to avoid mixing them together.
This could hopefully help structure further discussions and avoid
distracting the list from the more pressing task of finalizing the IGC
contribution for February (see comment at the end). The four issues are :

*1) Modalities for Vilnius preparation : new MAG  or not ?*

What started the discussion was a proposal for specific modalities for the
preparation of the Vilnius IGF. The tradition was to have the MAG installed
in May and remaining until February to deal with the stock-taking session on
the previous IGF. But the Vilnius IGF will take place in September, earlier
than previous IGFs, and it will be the last of the first serie of five.

The question was therefore : is it worth going through the whole process of
MAG renewal (1/3) for such a limited period of time (one meeting in May),
given in addition the decision to be made regarding the continuation of the
IGF itself ? Merely maintaining the 2009 MAG was one simple option, with
maybe the mere replacement of "natural rotation", ie people leaving their
MAG position for one reason or the other.

Markus Kummer in addition felt that an additional planning meeting could be
added in June and suggested that the same format as the one used in
September 2009 meeting for finalizing Sharm El Sheikh could be used. This
format, open to willing participants, could be called a MAG +. Are IGC
members comfortable with a MAG 2009 reconduction with "natural rotation" for
February and two MAG+ meetings (in the same format as September 2009) for
May and June ? An alternative could be

*2)  Does this hint at a suppression of the MAG in the furture ?*

Some concern have been raised that this could point towards a suppression of
the MAG altogether in the coming years, once the IGF is continued.

I understood nothing of the sort in the discussions. The creation of the MAG
as a multi-stakeholder structure shaping the Agenda and working methods of
the IGF (on the basis of broader consultations) should be considered one of
the positive "acquis" of the last five years and most actors want it
preserved. In addition, there is a valid argument regarding the capacity for
certain actors to get funding if they are part of a MAG, that they would not
get for more amorphous open meetings.

The discussion on the governance list has clearly demonstrated strong
support for the existence of a MAG. It is an innovative structure than can
of course be improved. But nothing indicates that the Secretariat has any
intention to suppress it. No conspiracy theory here.

*3) What are / should be the "powers" of the MAG ?*

This is a third issue, and it is worth exploring. The current functioning
can probably be summarized as follows : on the basis of the lessons from the
previous event, the MAG in the February meeting outlines the main structure
of the next IGF and does a preliminary identification of the general theme,
the general structure of the event (number, length and format of the main
sessions) and the labels of the main sessions. This often raises interesting
political discussions and produces formulations that are acceptable to all,
but give some more detailed focus on one specific angle for each session.

The preliminary thematic structure is usually circulated for comments and
refined by the MAG after the May consultations. The final composition of the
panels (if any) is determined ideally during the September meeting, and
usually up to the last minute :-) Last September, the panel composition and
the choice of moderators was prepared in an open format (that is proposed
again this year).

This is how the self-organizing nature of the IGF has produced a progressive
refining of the themes. From the relatively neutral four themes of Athens
(the so-called SODA Agenda : Security, Openness, Diversity and Access) , we
have progressively evolved into the themes addressed in Sharm, that included
: Critical Internet Resources; Security, Openness and Privacy; IG in the
light of WSIS Principles and an emerging issues session on Social Media.
Vilnius can continue this trend and it is up to the MAG to do it in a
balanced way.

Valid discussions have emerged on the list regarding the real powers of the
MAG (vs the Secretariat or UN DESA) and whether they should be further
increased. This deserves more discussions in the perspective of the
continuation of the IGF. *(It is important to note however that the
organization of the consultations on the continuation of the IGF in Sharm el
Sheikh were  out of the responsibility of the 2009 MAG and entirely under
the leadership of DESA, in application of Article 76 of the Tunis Agenda)*.

But in this discussion, it could be interesting to distinguish more clearly
between a) the general Agenda-setting function (which is a major purpose of
the MAG closed sessions, and probably one of the main reasons for keeping a
MAG) and b) the choice of panelists that can benefit from a broader, more
open interaction. For Vilinus, in order to reduce the overall number of
workshops, the MAG could also envisage identifying a few sub-themes of the
main sessions, to be discussed in dedicated workshops that it would initiate
and call the relevant stakeholders to co-organize (see French contribution
previously posted).

*4) The composition and nomination of the MAG*

This is a fourth thread, certainly important, as questions of improved
balance between stakeholders, modes of designation and role of the UN
Secretary General in the nomination (the black-box mechanism) could usefully
be addressed when looking forward towards the next five years.

Here again, valid views have been exchanged, with strong political
undertones (in the positive sense) and the potential for innovation should
be fully explored (as mentioned by Wolfgang).
_______________

I hope this post helps clarify the range of issues. Maybe our co-moderators
could help structure future discussions around these four threads.

The first Thread (modalities for Vilnius) needs to be continued right now
and the three other ones could benefit from *a short summary of the recent
discussion by our co-moderators*, in order to allow a broader but more
structured discussion. I often noted that the IGC list bursts into a frenzy
of contributions whenever some statement has to be prepared, often veering
into parallel or divergent threads, and the arguments then peter out, only
to be rehashed later in another burst.

These topics are important and it is useful, every now and then, to try and
summarize the different positions, to help the discussion move forward. I
hope this helps.

Best

Bertrand

For

-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle
Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the
Information Society
Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign
and European Affairs
Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100118/2a333db3/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