<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'>Hi,<BR>
<BR>
A few observations in relation to Parminder’s promising draft statement and related matters.<BR>
<BR>
<I>Drafting Process. </I> This has been said a number of times by various people since the WSIS days but again, it really would be a lot easier to work out consensus on draft texts using a wiki. It’s pretty labor intensive trying to dig through list traffic in order to keep straight multiple conversations on different points in the text and figure out the state of play on each, particularly when all messages have the same heading. Maybe it won’t be possible in this case with the consultation being soon, but down the road wouldn’t it make sense to put one up linked to whichever website we want to use going forward, Adam’s old one www.net-gov.org or Avri’s newer one www.igcaucus.org? (Also would be nice consolidate all docs at whichever, many caucus statements etc are at neither---would need a little WG to do this stuff I guess).<BR>
<BR>
<I>Document Format and Distribution. </I> We have often made statements of 1-2 pages covering multiple points and just read them out, and inevitably some of those points fail to resonate and remain focal points of the conversation as listeners’ attention wanders etc. Might not it make sense to a) have topical headers for each point or cluster of points, b) in making the statement, signal the chair that we would particularly welcome follow-on discussion on xyz so he explicitly puts it to the floor, and c) put a big stack of hard copies at the back of the room next to the inevitable ISOC/ICC snazzily formatted contributions?<BR>
<BR>
<I>Number and Composition of MAG Members.</I> While I understand the rationale for Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it’s a non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder’s wording on size and rotation. On reducing the number of government participants, on the hand, this is tough not only because of the regional formulas etc but also just because of the need for political buy-in, which obviously isn’t acute across the board. On the other hand, it would seem that some don’t contribute much to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial and political support for IGF. Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that we’d hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively contribute would seek to be represented? Or would that be viewed as unfair to lurkers needed on diversity grounds, e.g. LDCs?<BR>
<BR>
In a similar vein (I guess this goes to both selection and rotation), would it be sensible to suggest a no empty seats sort of rule? Empanelling and retaining people that are not in a position to or just don’t come in order to have diversity on the masthead seems like a wasted opportunity. <BR>
<BR>
<I>Technical and Administrative Community.</I> We’ve had this debate on and off since WGIG, and while I always argued for the position reiterated in Parminder’s draft (which has never been particularly well received by anyone other than a few developing country governments), arguably, that ship set sail some time ago. The decision was made to (over) include them, albeit sans explicit labeling, so to now argue that they removed even if only as an implicit category is a rather divisive proposition, and one on which we’d be unlikely to get consensus or prevail. So do we want to go back and restart the argument, which would probably not play out in a reasoned manner, invites broader ontological debates (what is CS, what is the public interest...), and could distract attention from other issues? At this point I’m inclined to support Adam’s view,<BR>
<BR>
> My problem with the technical community isn't <BR>
> that they are represented, but there are too <BR>
> many. 11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from <BR>
> private sector and civil society respectively. <BR>
> And I think people generally recognize a close <BR>
> alignment between the private sector and <BR>
> technical community (it is certainly apparent <BR>
> inside the MAG.) So I would rather see a <BR>
> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech <BR>
> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim <BR>
<BR>
<I>Co-chairs. </I> Agree with the point but think the pararaph could be more concise. Wouldn’t hurt to note that on this we agree with PS & T&A.<BR>
<BR>
<I>Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. </I> To me these are key topics. I’m glad Parminder touched them, but I’m not sure a series of questions on each is the most effective approach. I wonder whether it’d be possible for us to positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG (I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...) <BR>
<BR>
<I>Listservs.</I> We’ve had this parallel thread but the issue’s not mentioned in the draft statement. Wouldn’t it have more oomph if we did it here rather than just as an informal ‘sense of the caucus’ conveyed by Adam and Jeanette to the mAG? It seems that there's support for two lists, subject to Adam’s proviso,<BR>
<BR>
> Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the <BR>
> closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about <BR>
> this on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion <BR>
> going on, and at some point it would be summarized back (in some <BR>
> form). If the closed list were used to excess then it should be <BR>
> obvious.<BR>
<BR>
I understand Jeremy’s desire regard the third inclusive list but just don’t see mAG people, particularly governmentals, doing this.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
<BR>
Bill<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On 2/11/08 6:53 AM, "Parminder" <parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE="Arial"><SPAN STYLE='font-size:18.0px'> <BR>
(starts)<BR>
<BR>
We appreciate the transparency measures…….. (here we can mention our appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to take them forward, which are being discussed in a separate thread.) <BR>
<BR>
On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. <BR>
<BR>
- First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name ‘MAG’, instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name, and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this body. <BR>
<BR>
- The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of them should be rotated every year. <BR>
<BR>
- Its membership should be divided equally between governments, civil society, and business sector. <BR>
<BR>
- On the issue of representation of technical community it is important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per political representation based on interests of, or representation of different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community’s presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at the time of final selection. <BR>
<BR>
- We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the present lopsidedness of the MAG. <BR>
<BR>
- Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection, especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of judgment. However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and normally be explained. <BR>
<BR>
- We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the technical community that “AG members should be chosen on the basis of how large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than "represent")”. We very much agree with this, and will like to further explore the implications of this criterion.<BR>
<BR>
- All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special interest groups. <BR>
<BR>
- The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well. <BR>
<BR>
- We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the present arrangement? Does the UN nominated chair has the central responsibility of MAG’s interface with the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG’s principal role/ responsibility) and the host country chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for the 2009 meeting onwards. <BR>
<BR>
With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it? Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? <BR>
<BR>
We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of formalization of these by the MAG.<BR>
<BR>
IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report? If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just by the UN SG’s office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF.<BR>
<BR>
We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder, modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national levels. <BR>
<BR>
Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results from that meeting. <BR>
<BR>
IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful participation in its open consultations. <BR>
<BR>
(Closing thank you stuff …)<BR>
<BR>
(ends)<BR>
<BR>
</SPAN></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>