[bestbits] [CSCG update] Letter to IGF Secretariat calling for greater transparency re: MAG 2017 renewal as part of IGF retreat consultation

Tue Nov 1 06:38:28 EDT 2016

Dear all,

We are writing to inform you that the all representatives of the CSCG have
sent a letter to the IGF Secretariat, copied in full below, as part of the
public consultation on the IGF retreat but specifically regarding MAG
nominations. This follows on from a conversation which brought to light the
upcoming MAG elections and the need to ensure greater transparency in that
process. It builds on the existing IGF retreat written documents
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-written-inputs>.

Currently, we are waiting for the text to be published on the following
site (http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-
suggestions/), after which we will seek to follow-up based on the response
from the Secretariat. In the meantime, we welcome any feedback on this
text. We are also open to receive comments from everyone with suggestions
on further engagement in all processes concerning CS representation.

We will keep you updated on the response from the Secretariat and next
steps from there.

Many thanks, any questions do let us know.

Best,
Sheetal and Poncelet.

------------------

Oct 31, 2016

Dear IGF Secretariat,

We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation on
the IGF retreat on behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society
Coordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated
civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society
appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the
coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, Best
Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and Non-Commercial
Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these groups extends to
many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as well as a much greater
number of individuals. These comments are made to p. 37, 39 and 40 of the
Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the text in all paragraphs.

In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on
improving the nomination process and makeup of the Multistakeholder
Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, we
take this opportunity to bring attention  to the prior steps related to MAG
nominations:

1.    In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The
result of this meeting, is a public document[1] <#_ftn1> *open to public
consultation until 31October 2016.* With regard to MAG, the paragraphs 37
to 49 address different points related to its work, and its selection
process. Relevant information is copied below:

*¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the Multistakeholder
Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair*

*¶ 39*

*There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent
selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer
criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection
processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same time,
many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the UN
Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting MAG
representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity.*

*¶ 40*

*A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in
the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some felt
there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for nominations.
Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to identify, target
and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient information on what
the UN Secretary-General is looking for.*

2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 IGF
preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the meeting as
Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF Secretariat.

The Summary Report: IGF Virtual Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG9
Meeting VIII - 18 October 2016, states on p. 8):

*“Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would get
started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was in
place as early as possible. There was also a short discussion about whether
or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not. *

*The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for
discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and quite
nuanced point**.*

*Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process was
that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG,
specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their
stakeholder group and geographical region, etc.*

*Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be
circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the
Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as
transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection process.
**The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 14:00 UTC.[2]
<#_ftn2>** “*

3. The recording of this session was made public[3] <#_ftn3>. Even though
sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it was not
always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not recorded,
from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection process was raised
by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item.  Specifically he pointed out that in the
past, the names of the nominees for consideration of the MAG have not been
public and he addressed the question to the MAG if it should be like this
(non public) for the next MAG renewal. *Until minute 1.06.23 no decision
was made and a request for written updates on this discussion sent to the
list was made so as to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of
transparency (minute 52.06)*

After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along with
the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how transparent
the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society stakeholders, will
be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to *the public consultation on the
IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the specific points related to MAG
renewal. We stress the importance of transparency in civil society
selection as MAG stakeholders and , in this sense, we  take this
opportunity to reiterate our availability to and willingness contribute and
collaborate in the process of selection of MAG members.*

*The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable,
transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed*. We believe
that, in the interests of transparency, names and application details of
all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. Whether this
should be at the close of applications, or at the close of assessments,
needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed procedures.

*Stakeholder procedures for making selections should also be publicly
available*(CSCG’s current procedures can be found at
http://www.internetgov-cs.org/procedures
<http://www.internetgov%C2%ADcs.org/procedures>)

We recommend that* in the interests of transparency,* *names and
application details of all*

*candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known.* This requirement
should also be

included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also if a
more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.

These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other

organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer the
above suggestions in the spirit of cooperation , as we also want to see
the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we offer our
services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to refine procedures
to ensure more acceptable, transparent and representative results.

*Analía Aspis - Richard Hill*

*Chairs, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group*

------------------------------

[1] <#_ftnref1>
http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/

[2] <#_ftnref2>
http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161025/0491282a/attachment-0001.pdf

[3] <#_ftnref3>
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-d-EIIQWsUiemNhVGwxbFRBeGc/view

-- 

*Sheetal Kumar*
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20161101/9f162de1/attachment.htm>