[governance] on Observers at MAG meeting

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Clarification below McTim:

On 24/02/11 20:33, McTim wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>> I would hope that the MAG tries to distill the inputs from the written
>> submissions, and the open consultation.
>>
>> I am not quite sure that is what happened today.
>>
>> My other observations, as an observer, are:
>>
>> * The MAG should make use of small group discussions who make proposals
>> on content and themes, with these groups then coming back into plenary
>>
>> * The technical community and the private sector is extremely well
>> prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the most
>> influential group by far in the MAG.
>>
>> * Civil society members of the MAG are doing their best, but battling.
>>
>> * Civil society is prepared in that people have proposals, text and
>> ideas, but is not well organised on site and not prepared for effective
>> participation in the meeting.
>>
>> * Government participation is very limited... with good efforts from
>> Brazil, India and a handful of northern governments.
>>
>> * There are some MAG members who don't participate at all. Why are they
>> there?
>>
>> * It is not a very developing country or civil society friendly space.
>>
>> * I think the private sector and the technical community should reflect
>> on their strategies
> 
> 
> What is their strategy(ies)?

Would be good if people from tech community and business can respond
themselves.
> 
> 
> ... they work in the short term, but will they work
>> in the long term?  They feed into the criticism of the IGF from certain
>> governments which, whatever our view of it may be, is not conducive to
>> making this process achieve its goals. Their withdrawal from the process
>> makes it less and less valuable for those of us who need to and want to
>> work with/challenge our governments to deal with basic internet access,
>> regulation, openness etc. issues.
> 
> 
> How are they withdrawing if they "extremely well
>  prepared and organised, and, in attendance. Therefore they are the
> most influential group by far in the MAG."
> 
Two different 'theys'.

It is governments that are withdrawing, or have withdrawn. Some have
never really participated. I was not referring to the business and tech
community.

Personally I am really critical of governments who don't participate.
Kenya was the only African government that, as the host, made an effort
to comment on the IGF programme.

I believe they should work inside the IGF space.

But their lack of participation also weakens the IGF and the IGF's
legitimacy and impact.

My point was, that, sitting in a MAG meeting, I really empathise with
developing country governments... it is not easy to make an impact, or
get your points across. If English is not your first language, and you
don't have very well though out positions it is even harder.

Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers?
What do MAG members think?

Anriette


> ??
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director
association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
____________________________________________________________
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