[governance] IGC statement FINAL VERSION
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Jan 27 21:51:59 EST 2010
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>> Wolfgang (and he is privy to MAG list discussions) in saying
>>
>> "I would also not support to critisize that there is only one offical
>> MAG meeting planned for 2010".
>>
>> confirms that this is the proposal on the table. Jeanette, can you
>> also help by agreeing that the issue is as I framed.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand what exactly you want me to confirm.
I thought I would leave this now, but if you insist, I will say it once
again. I want you to confirm the following, so those who may want to
make an opinion on this matter can do so.
1. That the proposal on the table is *not* to have more open MAG
meetings following open consultations, but have *no* MAG meeting
at all after Feb. In fact even have no MAG at all after Feb.
2. That the proponent of this proposal in the MAG list, and you
yourself on this list, mentioned it as a 'do-we-even-need-a-MAG'
experiment. Because others can then judge it as an experiment,
with possible implications of conclusion of 'success' of the
experiment (whoever makes the criteria and evaluation). Also judge
the implications of doing such an experiment at a time which more
legitimate processes of review and possible restructuring of the
IGF/ MAG are already on.
Parminder
> It seems obvious that we associate very different things with opening
> up the MAG to other participants.
>
> We also have different expectations of what the MAG can actually
> achieve. What you call fine-tuning is in my view not the job of the
> MAG but of the people who actually organize specific events.
>
> My personal example is the preparation of the main session on critical
> internet resources. I have now done this twice. Each time, the part of
> the MAG part was to agree on general issues that should be discussed
> in the main session (also specified by the MAG). The fine tuning was
> not done by the entire MAG but by an informal group consisting of
> people/experts interested in the topics and the moderators. I expect
> the same division of labor between MAG and active participants will
> develop again this year. I don't understand what's wrong with this
> division of labor as long as we make sure that interested parties can
> get involved.
>
> jeanette
>
>
>
> I have said many times
>> now that I am for more open participation in MAG meetings of people
>> associated with workshops etc as was also done in 2008. We can even
>> get more open, but without declaring that there is no MAG left to do
>> anything after Feb. Also to highlight that the proposer of this
>> proposal mentioned it as a 'do we need a MAG at all experiment' and
>> so IGC may also have an opinion on the intent and substance of this
>> experiment too.
>>
>> What is interesting is that some of us are ready that Feb meeting
>> closes the IGF-5's agenda, while we have not even proposed any
>> specific agenda at all!! So maybe, it is like, what the heck, let
>> anything happen at the IGF, or let anything not happen.... As long as
>> status quo is protected, whomever it serves.
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I dont think a MAG meeting in Sept would have resolved the issue.
>>>> However, would it not have given us further opportunities to
>>>> strategise and argue and negotiate on the issue, and on other
>>>> issues we seek to put on agenda? That is the point.
>>>
>>> This is a matter of speculation. You think another meeting would
>>> have helped the agenda, other thought that it would jeopardize the
>>> little consensus we had on the agenda.
>>>
>>> Holding fully-empowered MAG allows
>>>> political issues to be tabled, negotiated around and possibly
>>>> brought on to the agenda. CS advocacy and strategies are never a
>>>> one-off thing, they are long struggles. And every occasion to take
>>>> this struggle forward is useful.
>>>
>>> With your last point I definitely disagree. I don't think it is a
>>> good idea to renegotiate the agenda two months before an IGF
>>> meeting. It is neither possible to invite speakers nor to arrange
>>> workshops around main sessions if the last MAG meeting before the
>>> IGF may revise the agenda.
>>>>
>>>> So, the real issue is whether we want all the MAG meetings we get
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>> This is an open issue and there is no agreement on it. Unlike you I
>>> think it is good to devote the last meeting before the IGF to the
>>> planning of main sessions and workshops, and to invite all those who
>>> are involved in organizing these events.
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Jeremy is trying to make this point using the background of
>>>> the canceled MAG meeting of Sept 2009, which some people suspect,
>>>> only suspect,
>>>
>>> I don't think such suspicions should be part of our statement.
>>>
>>> just may have had something to do with ardent human rights
>>>> advocacy taken up by CS groups in the 2009 preparatory process.
>>>> However, since this is just a conjecture of some, I am fine if our
>>>> statement de-links the two issues. we can say something like.
>>>>
>>>> "In this regard, we find it important that all the three annual MAG
>>>> meetings are held so that important issues of agenda can be
>>>> decided, and fine-tuned to the necessary level of detail, through
>>>> taking note of open consultations and discussion among MAG members. "
>>>
>>> You know that there is no consensus on this position. Several civil
>>> society members have expressed support for the open meetings in May
>>> and June on the MAG list. I find Wolfgang's suggestions much more
>>> constructive.
>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Parminder
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this context, we have an
>>>>>> observation to make about the proposal that there should be only
>>>>>> one MAG meeting in 2010. The fact that a formal decision is yet
>>>>>> to be taken on whether the IGF is to be renewed and in what form
>>>>>> is not seen by the IGC as a decisive factor against the
>>>>>> rotation. However if a rotation does not take place, care must
>>>>>> be taken that this does not result in the programme for the
>>>>>> Vilnius meeting being prematurely set in stone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On this note, we would like to re-propose the adoption of a human
>>>>>> rights agenda for the Vilnius meeting, along with the inclusion
>>>>>> of a development agenda in Internet governance as a cross cutting
>>>>>> theme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IGF should also consider how to improve its orientation
>>>>>> towards the development of tangible outputs, even if these do not
>>>>>> amount to recommendations, declarations or statements (though
>>>>>> many of our members would support outputs of such kinds).
>>>>>> Whatever form its outputs take, efforts should be taken to ensure
>>>>>> that they are transmitted to relevant external institutions
>>>>>> through appropriate mechanisms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, in order to maximise its effectiveness, the IGF should
>>>>>> have an intersessional work program, rather than being limited to
>>>>>> a single annual meeting. This could include the development of
>>>>>> an ongoing work program for the IGF as a whole, to be carried on
>>>>>> through online tools and intersessional and regional meetings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alternatively the main responsibility for intersessional work
>>>>>> could be left to dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other
>>>>>> issue-specific working groups). In that case, it is widely
>>>>>> accepted that there should be a better mechanism than at present
>>>>>> for these groups to present their outputs to the IGF as a whole.
>>>>>> This would require the IGF to begin to set more stringent
>>>>>> standards for such groups, including open membership, democratic
>>>>>> processes, and perhaps multi-stakeholder composition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The MAG should also organize thematic working groups of MAG
>>>>>> members plus outsiders, to develop background material, IGF
>>>>>> discussion synthesis etc on major themes selected to be taken up
>>>>>> by the IGF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We thank you for the opportunity to present you with these
>>>>>> thoughts, which reflect a "rough consensus" of our several
>>>>>> hundred members from civil society, with a wide spread of
>>>>>> geographic and gender representation. We look forward to
>>>>>> continuing to constructively engage with and participate in the
>>>>>> IGF over the course of its renewed term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *About the IGC*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IGC is an association of individuals in civil society who are
>>>>>> actively engaged in internet governance and the IGF. Formed
>>>>>> during the lead up to the World Summit on the Information Society
>>>>>> (WSIS), our mission is to promote global public interest
>>>>>> objectives in Internet governance policy making. It now comprises
>>>>>> more than 400 individual subscribers to its mailing list, who
>>>>>> have subscribed to its Charter. More about our coalition can be
>>>>>> found at http://www.igcaucus.org <http://www.igcaucus.org/>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Jeremy Malcolm
>>>>>> Project Coordinator*
>>>>>> Consumers International
>>>>>> Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
>>>>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala
>>>>>> Lumpur, Malaysia
>>>>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *CI is 50*
>>>>>> Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer
>>>>>> movement in 2010.
>>>>>> Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect
>>>>>> consumer rights around the world.
>>>>>> _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read our email confidentiality notice
>>>>>> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
>>>>>> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20100128/20da908d/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list