[governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants

[Parminder]

I will like to relate the problem that MAG is facing (in speakers selection)
in coming to terms with the global variety and vastness of the issues - and
the people and constituencies that are interested in these issues - that IGF
is supposed to deal with, with the debates on the structure of MAG and the
IGF.

Many who exclusively advocate a win-win multi-stakeholder structure for
global governance -where all those interested can walk in and express
themselves, and the outcomes will be some grand magical average of these
expressions - may need to rethink the workability of such dispensations.
Some degree of representative-ness and exercise of power on others behalf -
balanced with as elaborate structures of transparency and accountability as
possible - is an essential element of any governance structure.

I have heard some MAG CS members making much of how MAG really doesn't wield
any power, and merely acts as a conduit from the various stakeholders,
expressing themselves at open consultations, and otherwise, to the Secretary
General (SG), who really wields all power that there is in the system. And
excuse me to say this, such a stance is disingenuous. Disguised power is
worse than open abuse of power, since it denies the legitimacy of, and
frustrates, any attempts at needed correctives...

In my view, it is better that MAG (under whatever name, bec it cant then be
a 'advisory group') has its power derived directly from the IGF (whatever it
is) than from the Sec General. After all there is no real executive power
meant to be exercised as per Tunis Agenda, and only soft power of agenda
setting, debating, connecting agencies, giving recommendations etc. A MS
group can handle such power.  

The issue of lining up speakers, while keeping sessions productive, clearly
brings to the forth the problem of clear decision-making by the IGF, which
will only keep compounding with time. We know that MAG doesnot just
implement what is stated in open consultations. In any case, just try and
hold the 'open' consultations in Rio or New Delhi and one will go away with
a very different output... So lets recognize the limits of this soft
structure of - we don't decide anything, everyone is allowed to speak, and
nothing really comes out specifically, and people are having a good time -
while there is no progress on developing urgently required public polices
for the Internet, a process which the IGF is supposed to primarily assist
in.  It is important to engage in a serious discussion on what structures of
MAG and IGF can help us meet the mandate of the IGF. 

Adam, you now speak of (in your email to MAG forwarded below)

> >We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
> >selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
> >select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.  

But in reply to Everton's (of Brazilian government)paper on ' Elements to be
considered for structuring the IGF' which proposed some kind of
representative-ness of MAG members vis a vis their corresponding stakeholder
group (we know such representative-ness is never very absolute, whatever it
may mean)  you mentioned that 

>>"AG members should be appointed by and are accountable to their 
>>respective stakeholder group;" (POINT MADE IN EVERTON'S PAPER)
>
>comment: I am uncomfortable with this.  I don't see how I could be 
>accountable to global civil society (nor how any government member, for 
>example, could be accountable to all
>governments.)  I see my role as acting as a connector between CS 
>organizations and the advisory group.  I will do my best to represent 
>what I understand to be principles and positions I believe to be 
>important to global civil society, but I cannot see a way for us to 
>realistically be accountable to our respective stakeholder groups.
>
>I'm concerned this notion of accountability could only be achieved by 
>adopting separated processes in which the four major stakeholder 
>groupings would reach agreement on issues and bring them to the 
>advisory group.  i.e. each would hold its own consultations, come to 
>agreement on positions, and then enter into some discussion or 
>negotiation with the other groups once in the AG setting.  Sounds a bit 
>like a Bureau.

How do you reconcile this with your present proposal for each stakeholder
selecting two people for each session? I am not trying to do nitpicking on
your statements here, but at present the only thing IGF does is to organize
a conference, and selecting speakers is THE main task here. And your
suggestion for how to best accomplish this 'main task' doesn't correspond
with how you see MAG member's decision making power and their
representative-ness of their stakeholder group.


I only mean to use the above case to argue for open 'admission' of the level
of power MAG exerts and its some degree of representative nature - and its
legitimization and structuration in an honest and clear manner - which an
IGF-authorized MAG will do better than acting as if it only advises the SG
and has no powers. 

In your reply to Everton's paper, you also seem to have a problem with his
proposal that MAG publishes its proceedings and decisions. 

>"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions." (EVERTON)
>
>comment: this seems contrary to what I thought we had agreed on 
>Tuesday.  Rather than "publish its proceedings and decisions" I suggest 
>the secretariat should publish a summary of discussions of AG meetings. 

I do not understand what problem you have with MAG publishing its
proceedings and decisions (and if MAG is a central part of IGF, TA seems to
suggest it must do so). I wouldn't normally associate this kind of position
with a CS member - governments are more likely to hold such positions. 

And again what's CS's problem with clearly laying down the 'process' and not
'annual event' nature of IGF - of which one important part is that MAG
should 'officially' and 'substantively' meet between IGF meetings.

>"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;"
(EVERTON)
>
>comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this.

Again. On Everton's suggestion

>"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their representatives to the AG 
>according to its own procedure, which should be transparent, democratic 
>and inclusive; "

The main problem you have raised is of ensuring cross-MS groups diversity
issues - like geo- and gender. I think that's not the main problem (each
group can be asked to ensure enough diversity within their choices, and CS
mostly does it already). The main problem is that unlike other stakeholder
groups it is difficult to organize 'one process' of selecting reps from CS.
This problem will always remain, but Everton's suggestion still may hold
some possible gains for CS and needs to be considered more seriously.


>Need to be careful the AG does not become 
>an executive, but interprets and implements in good faith and in a 
>transparent and open manner what we receive from stakeholders. 

All representative structures do the same, as they also take decisions (if
that's what is meant by becoming an executive). MS structures have some
unique qualities but also share much with representative governance
structures we are all aware of in pre-info society world.   

I will like to discuss these positions and alternatives here in the run-up
to the IGC sponsored workshop on 'fulfilling the mandate of the IGF'. 

Parminder  
 
________________________________________________
Parminder Jeet Singh
IT for Change, Bangalore
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 
Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055
www.ITforChange.net 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 11:08 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] Fwd: Re: [igf_members] Panellists and discussants
> 
> For info, sent the following to the advisory group last night.
> 
> Couple of things deleted and a comment.  Quoted text is what's on the
> AG list.  I recognize some flaws. But best I can think of. Might get
> numbers below 10.  I doubt it will be adopted ...
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> >Dear Markus,
> >
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >But I agree with
> 
> (names - snip)
> 
> >there are too many people
> >on the list.
> >
> >If there was one unanimous negative message from Athens it was there
> >were too many speakers. In my opinion it is not acceptable for us to
> >publish a programme with so many participants.
> >
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> >  But
> >I think we can fix both these problems, and also ensure good quality
> >speakers by allowing stakeholder groups to make further selections
> >(i.e. further reductions) from the list you sent today.
> >
> >We have recognized four main stakeholder groups: government, civil
> >society, private sector and the Internet technical bodies. That's how
> >membership of the advisory group seems to have been developed.  I can
> >hardly see a member of the advisory group that does not fit those
> >four groups.
> 
> 
> (thank you Meryem :-)
> 
> 
> >We are discussing six sessions.  I suggest each stakeholder group
> >selects two people for each session.  Each stakeholder group may
> >select a maximum of eight panelist and four discussants.  We only use
> >the list sent earlier today, "Panellists.18.10.2007.doc".  No more
> >additions, no pulling names back of people who have dropped off along
> >the way.  There isn't time for even more argument.  If that doesn't
> >automatically give balance then we can tweak.
> >
> >However, in making selections stakeholder groups can move people from
> >one session to another.  The list is flexible.  We should know
> >people's strengths well enough to suggest if they can be moved in
> >this way.
> >
> >Some observers may feel they will not be represented.  And perhaps
> >observers could be offered one panelist or discussant for each
> >session: a total of three panelists and three discussants. That would
> >make a maximum of 9 on each session.  I am aware that the formulation
> >I'm suggesting won't automatically balance the number of
> >panelist/discussants on all sessions. But I hope it gets close.
> >
> >Stakeholders are not required to make 2 selections!
> >
> >I think we all know what the criteria should be: first we are looking
> >for people who are expert on the subject matter and we must pay close
> >attention to regional diversity and gender.  If there are obvious
> >gaps after this exercise is done then we can look again.
> >
> >If we follow this plan we might get the number at or below 10 for all
> >sessions, and all stakeholders should be equally satisfied or
> >dissatisfied.
> >
> >Perhaps stakeholders will select the same person, in which case
> >numbers will drop.  Let's keep selection blind (and honest!), names
> >to the secretariat and no sharing before hand.  This would allow for
> >the opportunity of chance selection of the same person, so reducing
> >the numbers.
> >
> >People who are unfortunate and not selected can perhaps have their
> >names passed to the moderators as first choice
> >questioners/contributors from the audience.
> >
> >We must reduce the number of participants.
> >
> >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