[governance] MAG meeting

[parminder at itforchange.net]

When the MAG assembled in the morning today, the secretariat asked MAG
members to sit in the middle and observers on the sides, so that they knew
who is who.

Normally, MAG members have been liberally interpreted to include Special
Advisors. And special advisors have till now largely meant that there were
a few more civil society members in the room. At this point, Adam
pointedly asked the status of Special Advisors in regard of who sits
where, which was obviously to be connected to speaking rights during the
meeting. The secretariat, in the form of Chengetai, answered that since
there is no chair there are no advisors to the chair. Which may be a
little unsure interpretation. In fact there is even no MAG  today, as even
Chris Disspain said during the meeting without being challenged by the
secretariat or the chair. Things are rather informal. BTW, Chair advisors
are like all other positions attached to a position not a person, in the
same way that MAG may not disappear simply if for some reason the UN
secretary general remits his position suddenly. These kind of things can
be very disruptive and that is why things continue till alternative
arrangements are made. So, in the same way, since there was some kind of
chair-ship of today's meeting, there would informally continue to the
special advisors doing the same role as earlier. As i said, everything is
more than a bit fuzzy and a bit informal at present.

So, Adam, I really do not understand what made you put Hartmut, Wolfgang
and me (and Jovan if he is to come in) out of circulation during the
meeting today. Any specific reason or strategy behind it? I understand
that all these are political events and situations, and our responses are
always political (and not just 'technical) and contextual. So I was
wondering what prompted you to do what you did (esp when some of IGC
members have actually been seeking that CSTD WGIGF should allow CS reps
also to take in advisors, basically the effort is to get into the room and
participate in all ways one can)

I dont mind it too much though personally:).  Kind of used to it. Happens
in political work but one knows that this kind of thing goes with a civil
society advocacy role.. Just in the last meeting I was told by Markus that
this was primarily a discussion among MAG members, and therefore , well,
to be blunt,  to basically shut up. I may remind you, Adam, and others in
the IGC, that before I accepted the Advisor's position, I wrote to Nitin
and Markus giving my understanding of the Advisor role, which including
speaking up, and I was specifically told that my understanding was right.
I did share my letter, and also if I remember right, Markus's response to
my letter, with the IGC, since at that time I was IGC co-coordinator,
before I accepted the position. I have also, at least once, been told off
by a technical community MAG member on the MAG list that it is MAG members
views that count (and by implication special advisor's doesnt).

But I wasnt expecting a CS member to do something like this, in a context
where he clearly knew the exact and specific outcomes - that three or four
of the very few CS members in the room will not be able to speak in the
MAG meeting. Any explanations, Adam?

Parminder



____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t