[governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon

[Izumi AIZU]

Dear Mike,

Thank you very much for the comments below. My whole intention is very
close to what you think. That's why I also asked if the term "remote"
is the right word.
And I also brought the time zone to attention.

In any case, I agree that what is most important is not to agree on
abstract principle
level [only], but rather to realize the desired substance, or outcome
in your words.

Just to add, the atmosphere of the room towards the end of morning session
was, "just finish one remaining minor point on the agenda, remote participation,
maybe in 10 minutes or perhaps 25 min, then adjourn the whole meeting and thus
have free afternoon" - the Chair indicated that and I saw many were almost in
agreement. Knowing that CS believes Remote Participation is crucial part of IGF,
I took the floor and asked to rethink. I also added that there are
folks who were
not able to come to morning session due to other engagement at WSIS who
plan to come to the room in the afternoon. It will be unfair for them to change
the agenda without giving no prior notice. I sort of insisted.

Well, MAG meeting is over. Some said MAG came a long way, after the meeting,
that it became open to observers, and say starting yesterday
afternoon, the floor
was given to non-MAG members without any procedure. They were treated "almost"
equal to MAG members in the room.
Of course we still have long way to go, to make MSH more meaningful and to make
the voices of civil society to be heard more substantively. That is
where we need
more work I really feel now.

Thank you for all the interest, support and your own voices!

izumi

2012/5/18 michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>:
> Just one point...
>
> "Izumi: Principle level: Treat "remote" participants equal to physical
> participants as much as possible."
>
> In the discussion of several months ago on remote participation the point
> was made (although perhaps not in these words) that it was important to
> recognize that people participating remotely were not "equal" in their
> opportunities for participation and in practice never would be. What is
> important as a principle is to recognize the differences in opportunities
> for participation remotely as compared to f2f and to build in mechanisms to
> ensure that the "outcomes" achievable from participation whether remote or
> f2f were as "equal" as possible.
>
> A subtle point perhaps but one that I think is crucial as it provides
> direction for the design of the overall IGF not simply of processes of
> "participation" but also of the desired/anticipated outcomes of the IGF
> itself.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
> AIZU
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2012 8:44 AM
> To: governance
> Subject: [governance] MAG Meeting, Day 2, Afternoon
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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