[governance] MAG meeting
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Fri Feb 25 12:16:55 EST 2011
> > Parminder, there is no chair, how can there be chair's advisors? Not
>> everything is about you, relax please.
>
>Of course not about me, but I asked you what was it about... because there
>is a certain impact a few of us are suffering here, and you havent
>answered that question.
What do you mean "suffering". You think you were
going to be allowed to speak? There was at least
one advisor who was going to ask the same
question. We all suffered, the meeting was
informal and on past practise that means all of
us should have been able to speak. Why did you
not speak up on that point?
There was (and is) no chair for there to be any
advisors to. Look at the MAG and advisors letter
of appointment. My intention was that everyone
should have had the right to speak in the
meeting. No special status for anyone.
The letter giving the MAG its mandate for 2010 is
pretty much the same form as previous years and
each year it has been interpreted as the MAG's
mandate ending with the meeting it was asked to
prepare, in this case Vilnius. Think it's pretty
clear from the precedence established from
earlier years that yesterday's meeting should
have been held as an open consultation.
Parminder, you of all people should know this.
Some years ago, the first time the MAG's mandate
hadn't been renewed by the time of a consultation
you were one of the people who successfully led
the argument that the MAG meeting should be open.
You then spoke during that meeting (as did Bill
and others.) What happened then was one of the
more important achievements in improving openness
and transparency of the MAG.
Parminder, a question for you, were you going so
sit in the room hoping not to be noticed until
you tried to take a mic? Clearly the advisors
have no legitimacy, you know that. Is that how
you think we should make processes to ensure
transparency and accountability of the MAG? We
know you care deeply about the process we're
engaged in. You have made many important and
principled points about the transparency of the
MAG. So we should have been demanding the meeting
was open for all observers as we (you) did
successfully some years ago when the MAG's
mandate had also not been renewed. We have
continually pushed to open the MAG process yet as
a result of yesterday we might be back to where
we were in 2005: MAG members speak and so do
"observers" from the IGOs (oh, we have
transcripts and can sit in the room and listen.)
It should have been a flag to everyone that the
first entity called to speak was UNESCO.
So to get back to your question, what I was
expecting was for all the CS people in the room
to ask for the meeting to be open, to remind the
Secretariat of precedence, and for MAG members
and others to speak up in support. As far as I
was concerned you and anyone else who had been an
advisor should have the same right to speak as
everyone else in the room. Nothing special. I'm
sorry you did not see that as the correct
approach and speak to it.
Instead we pretty much rolled over, with silence
from our MAG members. The only person who spoke
in favor of holding the session open/informal was
tech community. And when there was an
opportunity for the CS members to speak up for an
open process during the closed post-lunch session
they first agreed to holding that discussion
under the Chatham house rule. Then, apparently,
not one MAG member spoke up in favor of openness.
If I am wrong about this I apologize, but that's
the summary of those closed 15 minutes I've been
told by a MAG member who was in the room. Perhaps
those CS members who were there can tell us why
they accepted the Chatham house rule, and what
was decided in that closed session, respecting
the rule of course
<http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/>.
I was also told the moderator interpreted the MAG
decision liberally when she said some observer
comment would be allowed if time permitted, when
actually the MAG's decision was for none at all.
Later when an observer was allowed to speak it
was at the initiative of one of the Internet tech
community representatives not civil society.
Now there are MAG only working groups
synthesizing questions for the design of the
various sessions, and we can be pretty sure there
won't be enough CS members to cover all the
groups and work (half our members seem to have
completely lost interest.) Another step
backwards. I expect the agenda will strongly
reflect the interests of business and the
Internet tech community. Perhaps our MAG members
could ask that those groups be opened up to other
volunteers.
I hope the caucus will protest the way the
meeting was held, it was an enormous disadvantage
to civil society (no funding support for one
thing.) And we should ask that the commitment to
the rotation of MAG members is honored.
Adam
>When secretariat asked observers to move to the sides, it obviously was to
>do with differential speaking status, and you immediately got us - special
>advisors - moved out as well. How did it help openness, or CS
>participation.
>
>Of course I am cheesed off, dont you expect me to.
>
>and you are not telling why did you do it - with what end in mind.
>
> I just
>have this hypothesis that reasonable people act with some end in mind, so
>what were you trying to achieve here today.
>
>>
>> We should be in an open MAG meeting.
>
>But that is not the point we are discussing here, are we. We shd be open,
>but how did getting some of us shut up through your intervention help that
>cause is what i am wondering.
>
>
>
>
>
> The first time the MAG met
>> without its mandate being renewed was 3 or 4 years ago (I was still
>> a member, or "non-member" depending on how we can confusingly refer to
>> the title :-)) and I remember all in the room were able to speak. You
>> were there and you spoke and it was an important precedent for the
>> evolution of the MAG and process. That openness is what we should be
>> enjoying this morning. That we are not is a problem, the process has
>> moved back to how we started in 2005.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:16 PM, <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
____________________________________________________________
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