<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333333" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="sans-serif"><br>
<br>
The second important element to report from the MAG meeting </font><font
face="sans-serif"> has to do with the process of selection of MAG
members. <br>
<br>
It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their
established ways to
select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the discussion here is
only about selection of non-gov members.<br>
<br>
The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The
general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was
discussed. While general observations were made about increasing
openness, transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main
'possible' operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand
will be recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting</font><font
face="sans-serif"> that will be conveyed to the UN SG</font><font
face="sans-serif">, is as follows:<br>
<br>
It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG
members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not
exclusively be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from
various stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which
then (apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority,
with a possible last check by the concerned authority.<br>
<br>
On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in
fact a non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and
decided on by private sector and technical community. We all know what
will happen. I kept opposing this proposal as being completely
unacceptable to most in civil society. Though I was 'assured' that this
will not operate as a possible veto by private sector and technical
community on possible CS members, and that the 'finalisation' of the
list will 'only' be as per express criteria, chiefly, geographic
balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a manner that will
systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as 'extreme' (I
can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already work in IGF
space when such "MS" bodies make 'persons' related decisions). We have
enough people in CS outside IG realm wondering about the degree of
co-optation of CS in this area for us to submit to processes that will
further round us up nicely into.... well, i wont use the adjectives
that come to my mind fearing people may take things personally :) <br>
<br>
Most CS members in the MAG list joined me in opposing this proposal.
However it is still there as the only new proposal for selecting
non-gov MAG members and it worries me a lot. Those supporting the
proposal did go to great lengths to try to convince us that it was not
at all what we take it to be, but I really could not understand the
difference. (Others at the MAG meeting can help me here, if they
could make out the difference.) And of course a lot got mentioned about
mutual trust among
(nongov) multistakeholders etc which seemed to make those of us opposed
to the
new proposal look so morally weak and perhaps of a loathsome
suspicious nature. <br>
<br>
If the new improvement is really in that the stakeholder lists coming
bottom-up will not be 'interfered' with except for transparent
application of clear criteria - chiefly geographic balance - I would
prefer this is done by the secretariat, in active consultation with the
concerned stakeholder group, whereby any change necessitated by the
application of the 'express criteria' is referred back to the group
making the recommendation for making necessary changes, including if
necessary new names. I would not want a group dominated by private
sector and technical community reps doing this. <br>
<br>
We did suggest let a CS rep group do the work of getting the balance
right (the term 'triage' was used in the text for this process) and
other stakeholders do it respectively for their respective groups, and
the response
was that three parallel process will simply not be able to do a
'collective' or ' across the groups' balancing, which may be a valid
point.<br>
<br>
(BTW, while the proposal of this MS group doing the selection or triage
is still there, we
were able to add something to the effect that they will work 'in active
consultation with concerned stakeholder
group' to the text. But as mentioned above I do not agree with the
proposed MS
body doing this activity.)<br>
<br>
IGC may want to take a specific position on this issue.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>