[governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] IGF/MAG renewal an opaque and non-incluse process / un processus opague et non-inclusif]

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Parminder wrote:
> I don't understand the need and purpose of a co-chair.

I think that the idea of a co-chair is an excellent one, except for the 
fact that, as you have noted, it is another governmental stakeholder 
representative.  In fact I recently wrote in my PhD thesis on the IGF:

"* Rather than being appointed by the UN Secretary-General, the chair
   should be selected by democratic or consensual means by the [Advisory
   Group] itself. ...

* The rotation of the candidates for chair among the stakeholder groups
   is necessary to ensure the bureau’s legitimacy as the peak body of a
   multi-stakeholder governance network. ...

* The election of co-chairs, as well as supporting the bureau’s
   multi-stakeholder legitimacy, adds a layer of accountability to the
   [Advisory Group] ..."

> (I know powers-that-be will justify this by saying that MAG is after all a
> program committee, and host country's co-chairman-ship has practical uses. I
> think MAG has more powers than that of a program committee, it shapes the
> IGF, and therefore wields much of whatever power IGF has.) 

Absolutely.  This is also why it is unconscionable that the Advisory 
Group's members have been appointed without any open call for 
candidates, or any published criteria for their selection, or any 
transparency in the process of their selection - I mean, we don't even 
have a list of their names yet!  They are apparently not all the same as 
the original Advisory Group.

> I find some parts of the proclamation quite useful.. especially
> 
> " As part of its mandate, the Advisory Group has been asked to enhance the
> transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow of
> information between its members and the various interested groups."

I also took note of the statement that "Any decision on how to prepare 
subsequent meetings will be taken after the Rio de Janeiro meeting in an 
open, inclusive and transparent consultative process, taking into 
account the proposals of the Advisory Group."  This suggests to me that 
we are being promised greater input into the selection of the third 
Advisory Group (or bureau, or whatever it becomes).  But why couldn't 
that have been the case for this year?

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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