[governance] The 4 different discussions regarding the MAG

Mon Jan 18 17:48:00 EST 2010

Dear Bertrand,

My confusion arises from two things.

When I was selected to into the MAG, I was notified that there would
be two MAG meetings for the task that MAG carries out but the program
for the IGF2009 Sharam was locked down in the very first meeting
allowing no modification to the program and none of the following
meetings in the form of Open Consultation/Public Meeting helped the
locked down program. Stakeholders moved forward with grievances and
'just' went through the IGF because there was 'no other way'. We new
MAG members, representing IGC also moved forward in a lot of confusion
so both the stakeholders and their MAG members were taken forward
confused.

This was in fact a weakness on part of the MAG and a wrong
justification that we set the program but no Open Consultation
followed on that program followed by another MAG meeting to fix,
modify, innovate any issues rising from such an Open Consultation. The
program wasn't improved. Despite the strong interventions on changing
main session themes to Human Rights and Internet as well as the
Development Agenda never happened and we ended up with ICANN and other
companies delivering stories about how good they are or were. Its not
that they shouldn't be given the space, its indeed an open space but
only two stakeholders on the multistakeholderism isn't the IGF in its
totality is it?

Second concern, why experiment when the IGF2009 did not prove to be
stakeholder consensus led? It was fine because it was felt to be fine.
No, definitely not possible. We have to realise that we cannot defer
from the mandate and nor the process that we together set forth and
well implemented if we say we are to move forward together in the era
of renewal. I do not want to repeat September 2009 meeting formats at
all as I shared in the MAG list. This meeting should be declared a MAG
Meeting with Public Participation so that stakeholders can propose
changes or modifications or improvements or innovations and we the
members of the MAG designated by our respective stakeholder groups of
the multistakeholderism to help intervene, deliberate and take those
suggestions forward and structure a program conducive to our
stakeholder needs!

The upcoming meeting in February 2010 has to have its open
consultation plus a full MAG meeting with all stakeholders invited and
run in an open and public manner so that our stakeholders that have
selected us and sent us into the MAG can witness and see that we take
their issues to the floor and that we try our level best to deliver a
program according to their needs. Balancing and countering over-sized
interest groups trying to take control should be countered by the MAG
because we are well aware of the situation. Future experiments and
tests can be done when we have the new IGF mandate in our hands and
the next 5 years announced after the Vilnius meeting.

IT is necessary for the satisfaction of our stakeholders that we go
with the normal process of real rotation as was happening before and
we have a designated MAG meeting open to our stakeholders/the public
so transparency plays its part and innovation in main session themes
and program organization improves the IGF as an open space for
dialogue evolving in accordance to the ever-changing/ever-evolving
Internet!

As a MAG member, my priority is my stakeholder group, the IGC, its
voice, needs, concerns, interventions and deliberations and from last
year IGF2009, I am sorry to say that it wasn't an achievement. Let's
fix things and stop from trying to hop over IGF2010 again.

-- 
Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
Advisor & Researcher
ICT4D & Internet Governance
Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF)
Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC)
My Blog: Internet's Governance
http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/
Follow my Tweets:
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
MAG Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
<bdelachapelle at gmail.com> 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")
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
____________________________________________________________
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