[governance] on Observers at MAG meeting
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wzb.eu
Fri Feb 25 03:15:54 EST 2011
Hi,
Anriette is right, participation of governments has gone down over the
years. I think there are several reasons for this. Not all of them are
negative. For example, some governments probably did not come anymore
when the preparatory process proved stable enough to bear no further
political risks (for example, of repeating the WSIS paralysis on
CIR-related topics).
Also, the last two years were clearly overshadowed by the upcoming
evaluation. Political attention shifted from the IGF itself to all the
maneuvers in New York surrounding the report on the IGF.
The tasks and operation of the MAG meetings suit stakeholders more than
governments because we focused more and more on the substance of the
program, and to some degree on improving the format. Such issues
activate the competences of practitioners and conference goers more than
people with a public administration background.
I agree with Anriette that the declining participation of governments is
bad for both the MAG and the IGF but part of this is probably due to the
MAG's role as a program committee.
Anriette is also right about the very good coordination of all
ISOC-related members. We have noticed this many times, also on this
list. Civil society cannot compete in this respect, neither can
governments btw. CS and governments have the same problem: we simply do
not agree to the extent that ISOC folks do. We disagree not only in
terms of substance, we also disagree in terms of political style. The
latter might even be more divisive.
Speaking personally, at least for the last two years I preferred
negotiating program issues with people "from the other political camp"
simply because I did not have to defend myself all the time. While we
may have disagreed on political positions, we accepted each other as
individuals who put a lot of effort into this process.
jeanette
On 24.02.2011 23:08, Marilia Maciel wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:anriette at apc.org>
> executive director
> association for progressive communications
> www.apc.org <http://www.apc.org>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org <mailto: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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list