[governance] on Observers at MAG meeting

[Marilia Maciel]

I am not sure I understood your comment:
Perhaps MAG meetings work better when there are not so many observers?

I have been to many open consultations but this is my first MAG meeting and
although I believe it is odd  that people who are there with ideas could not
speak their minds, I wonder if allowing observers to speak would not bring
prejudice to multistakeholder equilibrium in the MAG. It would give the
 ones that have more facility to be in geneva more voice and more power. Of
course, people who had the status of advisers are a different story.

But anyway the fact that observers could not speak on the mic today did not
mean they stayed quiet. There were Skype and Gtalk messages flying all
around and some ideas from observers came through and were spoken by MAG
members. This silent presence did have an impact.

I would like to hear MAG members opinions on this question as well, but my
logic tells me that transparency and increased chance for accountability
puts pressure for MAG members to work better... Doesn't it?

Marilia

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:44 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110224/4c1387cc/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, 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