[governance] MAG meeting on the 24th - the issue of self improvements

[parminder]

Hi All

About the MAG meeting on the 24th, I find two interesting elements to 
report.

The first is about the specific mandate given to the MAG by UN SG 
earlier this year to "make proposals with regard to its own future, 
should the mandate be renewed". The meeting on the 24th was supposed to 
have this as its main agenda apart from reviewing Vilnius IGF.

However, apart from discussing the way MAG members should be selected 
(to which I will come in another email), the meeting unfortunately did 
not really get into looking into any substantive aspects in which it 
could change/ improve its working methods and outputs etc. The problem 
was that right at the onset it was decided that the meeting will try to 
formulate a possible terms of references for itself, which further 
largely turned into an exercise for developing TOR or expectations for 
aspiring new MAG members.

The discussion therefore got a lot 'technicalised' towards discussing 
details of what MAG members have been doing over the years, rather than 
address the political question of how MAG can improve itself to still 
better serve the IGF mandate and its impact, especially in the areas of 
perceived lack.

Obviously, if we just look at 'what did MAG members do' for the sake of 
developing a list of expectations from new MAG members, the discussions 
take quite a different direction from what can be expected to happen if 
we specifically focus on possible improvements. I am quite sure that a  
'what MAG members did'  kind of documents could easily be developed by 
the secretariat and possibly passed around for inputs if necessary. 
There cannot be much debate over such directly observable facts.

The real issue of possible improvements of the MAG got almost completely 
ignored. I do not understand why developed country govs, technical 
community, private sector and many in the CS do not appreciate that most 
actors from developing countries - esp CS and govs - really really want 
substantive improvements in the IGF for it to begin to contributing to 
global Internet policy making, which is the primary purpose for which it 
was set up.

Interestingly, whenever, there is a move from within the UN to discuss 
IGF improvements - whether in form of CSTD WG or UN Gen Assembly 
discussions, there is a loud clamour from the groups that I mention 
above that IGF should self-evolve, and self-improve. Why then when the 
primary driving body of the IGF - the MAG - is specifically asked to 
suggest 'proposals regarding its own future' which in my view should 
specifically contain proposals for improvements, it simply refuses to 
even take up a good discussion on the subject?

Can any IGF self-improvement enthusiast explain this paradox to me?

Contrary to what any outsider may expect from a meeting of a Body ( with 
a political role and mandate) called for the purpose of considering its 
future form and activities, and giving specific suggestions in this 
regard, there were almost no animated discussions. The meeting almost 
fizzled out post lunch when people seemed eager to just be done with it 
and leave. Thats the MAG and the IGF for you. They dont want any real 
outcomes, and they dont want others to tell them to change.

Parminder







open consultations





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/dd3d7a78/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