[governance] on Observers at MAG meeting
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Sat Feb 26 04:07:36 EST 2011
I have found myself even more out of the loop than Katiza or others for
variety of travel and other reasons.
In an earlier meeting I asked that someone on site volunteer/be designated
to provide some sort of running substantive commentary.
In reading through the emails on this meeing I have been finding that 90%
are process related. Certainly necessary for those on the ground but of
little interest or value to anyone else.
What I haven't found are any emails that summarize what the issues are that
are being addressed, who is addressing them and how, what the outcomes are
and what is the likely import of those decisions.
Without that there is really no possibility of even following what is going
on let alone contributing at any point either now or in the future.
Tks,
M
-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Katitza Rodriguez
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 8:27 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] on Observers at MAG meeting
Hola,
I agree that there is a need for civil society to organize ourselves in a
strategic way, to ensure that we can participate most effectively in this
process. In particular, it would be beneficial for civil society to have a
meeting - in private among civil society (which this list is not) - to
discuss our strategy, goals and proposals before the next MAG meeting.
We should ensure that we have a virtual meeting just before the next MAG to
coordinate among us, and to make sure that we know what are our common
positions. This will enable MAG civil society members who are present at the
meeting to be most effective - both at presenting common positions, and also
at picking up and running with suggestions of the members at large that are
put forward during the meeting.
While I appreciate the efforts that the Secretariat made to help those of us
trying to participate remotely today, it is clear to me that it is simply
not possible to rely completely on the live-time remote participation
facilities for ensuring effective civil society input for several reasons.
First, there were ongoing technical glitches with the video stream today.
The video and audio tracks disappeared or were not working properly during
long periods of time today, and unfortunately at key moments of the
discussion. I spent time coordinating with tech support. There were a need
to scroll down the transcripts which was also uncomfortable. Second, there
was a significant time lag, or latency, between the actual discussion on
situ and when you were able to raise your hands and speak. This made it
impossible to add comments at the right time, in the flow of the
conversation, as the discussion on that topic was taking place. Several
times, I found myself giving my comment after the topic of discussion had
changed. Obviously it is hard for civil society to shape the discussion if
we are having to add our comments only *after* the discussion has moved on
or be able to make a second intervention as soon after other stakeholder put
forward their message. Third, decisions were taken today at times when the
video and sound and transcript were not working; (ie. when the right of
observers to speak was discussed) all of a sudden it would come back, and
only then I would discover that something had been decided and concluded.
Taken together, these problems made effective remote participation
frustrating and difficult.
But my sense is that there are strategies that we could use to better
address this next time, if we can have a private meeting to coordinate
before hand.
Finally, I want to apologize for not being able to attend the meeting in
person and explain why I was not able to do so. First and foremost, there
was no funding support for civil society to attend. I work for a
member-supported non profit organization. We do not have a travel budget.
Second, the confirmation that a MAG meeting would actually take place came
so late that I could not change my existing commitments and travel schedule.
Like all of you, I have multiple commitments and my schedule is set in
advance. I arrived back in San Francisco a few hours before the meeting
started. I joined the meeting at 3am my time, after close to 20 hours of
travel the day before. With more time and notice, I might have been able to
scrounge up funds or flying points to do so, but it was not possible in the
time that we were given. In short, we need to have more notice of these
meetings if we are going to ensure more civil society participation.
I would therefore like to suggest that we ask the Secretariat to set the
dates for the next MAG meeting with sufficient time to allow those of us in
civil society to make affordable travel arrangements so that we can attend.
We know it is in May but no dates have been given so far. I would also like
to suggest that civil society should have a virtual meeting(s) to coordinate
among ourselves as soon as the next MAG meeting dates are announced.
gracias,
Katitza
On Feb 24, 2011, at 2:08 PM, 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>
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
____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110226/94393386/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list