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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi,

my understanding was that the MAG interpreted the mandate to make 
"proposals with regard to its own future" in a modest way to avoid any 
presumption in face of the upcoming CSTD working group. While it would 
be odd for the MAG itself to discuss its authority or political weight 
within the overall process, it made sense to reflect on the 
institutional setting of its operation. This concerns, for example, the 
relationship to the UN SG and the black box approach. Several MAG 
members (me included) pointed out that the informal interaction between 
the chair and New York should be replaced by more robust and formal 
procedures so that we would rely less on the integrity of the 
"messengers" involved. It was felt that we were fortunate to have Nitin 
Desai and Markus Kummer most if not all people fully trusted and that, 
in the face of a complete renewal, of individuals involved in this 
process, it would be about time to document how the MAG worked, how it 
cooperated with stakeholder groups and the UN SG, and how this process 
could be improved. The role of the MAG as such should be discussed not 
by the MAG itself but by the CSTD working group.

Regardless of whether or not one shares this approach, I think it is 
worth explaining why the MAG chose this focus.

jeanette


On 30.11.2010 06:10, parminder wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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