[governance] on Observers at MAG meeting
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 26 12:12:20 EST 2011
On Saturday 26 February 2011 02:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote:
> 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.
Dear Mike
I am at the WG on IGF improvements and it has just ended.
I have almost always tried to submit a detailed report on any such
meeting that I participate as a CS rep, describing but also analysing
what had happened. These meeting are intensely political activities -
not technical, informational etc - and what really is happening is
difficult to capture by running commentaries. Also often communicating
substantial negotiation issues/angles, along with opinions on them, to
open lists may compromise what civil society and other progressive
actors are trying to achieve.
I understand that from the outside it may be a little frustrating, but I
am not much of a twitter guy :) . However, anyone wants to know about
what I see as going on, Pl contact me offline, and I will provide a
detailed response, as I will presently to you. Also, happy to keep one
to one link with anyone interested in making offsite contributions to
such meeting. Pl let me know, and I promise you will not be
disappointed. :). I do agree that civil society networks much less than
it should for such crucial meetings.
Parminder
> 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 <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 <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
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110226/e2bffb9f/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