[WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: [governance] MAG dictates rules and agenda for IGF?

Tue May 30 10:06:47 BST 2006

Avri, thanks. I was just about to write something similar.

Carlos, Pastor Peters: what do you think the 
multi-stakeholder advisory group should be doing?

I'm a member of the MAG.  I know that the Tunis 
Agenda called on the secretary general to convene 
the IGF and the purpose of the MAG is to help him 
do that.  I think the first detail any of us saw 
of what the MAG was expected to do was in the 
press release announcing the launch of the group 
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs//2006/sga1006.doc.htm>, 
says our main task is "to prepare the substantive 
agenda and programme for the first meeting of the 
Internet Governance Forum".  So it sounds pretty 
much like we are to be a program committee.  And 
I think we also have the additional task of being 
fund raisers (or to work with others as fund 
raisers.) Of course we should be open and 
transparent and we will be (but it's less than a 
week since we finished our first meeting and 
there is stuff coming out of the group already... 
first call for contributions last week.)

So of what we have done so far, (1) what is it 
that you are upset with? (2) what would you like 
us to do better?

What we have so far is a broad outline of the 
program and five core themes around which 
discussions will be held 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/table.htm> (I think 
most MAG members want to keep ceremony to a 
minimum, and we now hope the final afternoon will 
be used mainly for a discussion of emerging 
issues.)

"Internet Governance for Development" is the 
overall  theme and capacity building the main 
cross-cutting issue to be considered in all 
discussions.  (i.e. development and capacity 
building are horizontal.)  An outline of the 
programme to date 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/athens_outline.htm>

We heard about the meeting facilities for the 
first time during the consultation on May 19. 
They are a limiting factor: essentially a 
resort/conference complex 25 KM form Athens, with 
4 main meeting rooms/spaces: one room can 
accommodate 800 people, 3 more rooms 200 people 
each.  There may be some smaller rooms but we 
don't know any details (except rooms that can 
seat 10 people have been mentioned, but they seem 
of little use).  There may be hotels near by that 
have meeting facilities, but we do not know how 
near, or if the rooms will be offered at no cost, 
will have necessary meeting equipment, etc. It's 
a large complex, could be many rooms, just we 
don't have details.

So one large meeting room (800 people) and 3 
smaller rooms (200 people.)  Keeping these rooms 
in mind does the broad plan 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/table.htm> begin to 
make more sense?  i.e. hold the main sessions, 
morning and afternoon in the large room, and use 
the 3 smaller rooms for parallel workshops.

If you are concerned that an issues important to 
you (Internet resources?) will not be included 
under the themes Openness, Security, Diversity 
and Access, please consider submitting a proposal 
for a workshop

Hope this helps.

(disclaimer: just my opinion, not those of the MAG etc etc.)

Adam

At 9:42 AM +0200 5/30/06, Avri Doria wrote:
>Hi
>
>Well, I think the MAG is still only advising the 
>Secretary General on what it believes should be 
>done.  It is ultimately his decision what the 
>agenda looks like and what the workshop setup 
>will be.
>
>There certainly seems to be a difference of 
>opinion that remains to be resolved between 
>those who want a more focused Athens meeting and 
>those who want a more open meeting.  And I don't 
>think the discussion is over yet, so now is 
>probably a good time for discussing this with 
>the MAG members CS has access to.
>
>a.
>
>
>
>On 29 maj 2006, at 17.54, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
>>Dear people,
>>
>>I did not imagine the MAG would dictate IGF 
>>norms and agenda, and this was not in the rules 
>>established by the WSIS process.
>>
>>The MAG, an ad hoc creation of the UN Secretary 
>>General which is not part of the WSIS 
>>decisions, was supposed to help the secretariat 
>>regarding IGF procedures, selection process to 
>>ensure pluralism and transparency, methodology 
>>-- not predetermine content or agenda! This 
>>should be the task of the first IGF meeting 
>>itself -- and the IGF should  have final say on 
>>procedures as well.
>>
>>This went way off track, in my opinion -- no 
>>surprise, with the ICANN+business like-minded 
>>group dominating the MAG.
>>
>>Is CS agreeing to this?? Brazil will, I hope, 
>>react very strongly against this, and I also 
>>hope many other countries will do the same.
>>
>>frt rgds
>>
>>--c.a.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Carlos A. Afonso
>>diretor de planejamento
>>Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
>>
>>********************************************
>>* Projeto Sacix -- Pacote Linux orientado  *
>>* a projetos de inclusão digital com       *
>>* software livre e de código aberto,       *
>>* mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
>>* Coletivo Digital.                        *
>>* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
>>********************************************
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
>For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance