[governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG

[François Ullmann]

I agree with Bertrand's pertinent statement
Best regards

Dr. Francois Ullmann president of www.ingenieursdumonde.org


 

 	----- Message d'origine -----	
De: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>	
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:56:03 +0100	
Sujet: [governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG	
À: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>, Parminder <Parminder at itforchange.net>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	
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/a3391a6a/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