<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Bill<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>On others things a bit later, but I wanted
to clarify one point. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><i><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.5pt;
font-family:Arial;font-style:italic'>>Listservs.</span></font></i><font
size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.5pt;font-family:Arial'> 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,</span></font><font size=2 color=navy
face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Pl see the opening part of the draft statement.
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.5pt;
font-family:Arial'>>>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.) <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.5pt;
font-family:Arial'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>The discussion being carried out under the
thread ‘communicating with our peers’ will provide us the substance
for this part. It is meant to be included in the opening part of the statement.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Parminder <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> William Drake
[mailto:william.drake@graduateinstitute.ch] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, February 12, 2008
5:55 PM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> Singh, Parminder; Governance<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> Re: [governance]
Reconstituting MAG</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=4 face=Arial><span
style='font-size:12.5pt;font-family:Arial'>Hi,<br>
<br>
A few observations in relation to Parminder’s promising draft statement
and related matters.<br>
<br>
<i><span style='font-style:italic'>Drafting Process. </span></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><span style='font-style:italic'>Document Format and Distribution. </span></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><span style='font-style:italic'>Number and Composition of MAG Members.</span></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><span style='font-style:italic'>Technical and Administrative Community.</span></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><span style='font-style:italic'>Co-chairs. </span></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><span style='font-style:italic'>Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. </span></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><span style='font-style:italic'>Listservs.</span></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:</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=4 face=Arial><span style='font-size:12.5pt;
font-family:Arial'><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>
</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>