[governance] bureau yes bureau no??? ... Nomenclature vs functionality

[Adam Peake]

>  >>> avri at psg.com 5/25/2007 2:34 AM >>>
>>What I am really looking for, other then a good consensus
>>position for this caucus, is a MAG that would be truly balanced 
>>and which would be self renewing.  I would like to see a
>>process where each of the houses in the MAG has an equal
>>number of seats and can pick, through some yet to be
>>designed process, the occupants of these seats 
>>using an open and transparent set of processes.
>
>Agreed. This is exactly what I meant by the MAG being
>"under-institutionalized."
>


for example:

"About the Advisory Group.  While supporting the 
concept, we note that its composition, including 
the proportionate representation of stakeholder 
groups and the crosscutting technical and 
academic communities, was not openly and 
transparently discussed prior to its appointment.

Nor there is any clear transparency or clear norm 
on its terms, mandate, and working principles.

We think that clear terms and rules should be 
established for the Advisory Group between now 
and Rio, through an open process involving all 
the participants in the IGF as a shared 
foundation for our common work.

We further consider that if these rules and 
quarters for representation from each stakeholder 
group were openly established, it would be 
possible for the Secretary-General to delegate 
the actual process of selection of Advisory Group 
members to the stakeholder groups themselves.

Moreover, we express our dissatisfaction for the 
limited representation of civil society in the 
first instance of the Advisory Group, which 
amounted to about five members out of about 40.

We think that the significant participation of 
civil society and individual users, as proved by 
the WGIG, is key to making Internet governance 
events a success both in practical and political 
terms.

Thus, we would like to see such participation 
expanded to at least one-fourth of the group, if 
not one-third, and to the same levels of the 
private-sector and of the Internet technical 
community.

We confirm our support to the civil society 
members of the incumbent group and stand ready to 
provide suggestions for additional members with 
direct experience from diverse civil society 
groups.

We also reiterate the need for the IGF to be 
considered as a process rather than as an event."

>From the February IGC submission to IGF 
consultation.  I might well be wrong, but I think 
this statement while read at the consultation may 
have been submitted late to the secretariat, 
seems to have been overlooked on the website and 
was not considered in the synthesis paper 
summarizing the online contributions prepared by 
the secretariat prior to that meeting.

Best,

Adam


>____________________________________________________________
>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

____________________________________________________________
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