[governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG

[Parminder]

Hi Bertrand,

 >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 ?

I prefer we go with the normal process of real rotation. After all 
nothing has indicated that we wont have an IGF post 2010. In any case, 
formally MAG is renewed only for a year at a time. So we wont be doing 
anything 'formally' wrong by doing the full rotation, but only 
indicating as almost all participants at the IGF indicated, that they 
see IGF will go on, and want it to go on. Why should we be lazy on this? 
But I can live with a decision not to rotate.

However, the second part of your question "(in the same format as 
September 2009) for May and June?", has been the main issue of nthe 
whole debate.

No, I do not want to repeat the format of Sept 2009. You know that Sept 
2009 had *no* MAG meeting, and the program doc was completely closed and 
locked in May and it was declared that since there is no MAG meeting in 
Sept, the program doc cannot be amended or even fine tuned in any 
substantive way. To lock the (what only only be a sketchy) program doc 
in Feb itself this time, which is meant by the proposal on the table, is 
not at all acceptable. and i also dont see any reason why should it be 
done. Your emails itself notes that post-Feb MAG meetings in the past 
years have done major work. Why should it not be done this year? What is 
the motivation for suggesting that?

On the other hand I am certainly for MAG meetings to be open to 
participation by all interested  stakeholders.  But as I said these are 
to be  'MAG meetings' and not *non MAG*  planning  meetings, which  was 
the format  of  September 2009.
 

 >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.

Then you did not note the fact that the proposer of the proposal that we 
are discussing did clearly call it a possible experiment of 
do-we-even-need-a-MAG-at-all.

You may have access to MAG list - it was clearly proposed that MAG meets 
a last time in Feb, specifically in response to misgivings on whether 
simply extending the tenure of the old MAG will go well with everyone. 
So I am responding to a real situation, where it was proposed that there 
will be no MAG for the most of the year, and not an imagined 'conspiracy 
theory'.

Parminder

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 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/20100119/6f52ceb8/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