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

[Adam Peake]

Parminder,

This deserves more time/thought than I have for a couple of days.

Overall -- I think if the MAG were created early 
there is much it could do, and it would be able 
to do things in a way that better reflected 
public comment. But it doesn't matter what the 
group's called, MAG, AG, Bureau, bureau, if it's 
not created until August 2008 nothing will 
improve.

I think the MAG has been responsible for helping 
to convene meetings, not organize the 
"intersessional" process (don't like the idea of 
intersessional!)  No one's discussed IGF as a 
process of dialogue beyond the MAG encouraging 
dynamic coalitions.  It gets more like an annual 
conference and only an annual conference, and 
that's bad. This could be an important issue for 
the workshop to consider.  When the Tunis Agenda 
asked the SG "to convene a new forum for 
multi-stakeholder policy dialogue." Does it mean 
a meeting (in effect 5 annual meetings), or does 
it mean an ongoing process. To me 
"multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" suggests 
ongoing process.  So that's grossly missing.

Adam



At 2:34 PM +0530 10/22/07, Parminder wrote:
>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
>
____________________________________________________________
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