[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

Hi all 

 

I have prepared a rough first draft for a caucus consensus statement on
renewal of MAG issue. The draft will take in positions as discussed in the
coming days. Please offer your comments. It is a bit long, and I think we
will be able to chisel it down. But lets discuss the main substantive issues
involved here. 

 

I am unable to comment on renewal of MAG without touching the substantive
aspects of its role and mandate, and have therefore tried to frame some
issues in that area. 

 

I have put in some stuff about the government co-chair. I think we shd put
across our opinion on this issue even if there may be little chance of
'correction' at the stage.

 

And yes, I do expect some discussion here on the matter of representation of
the technical community. Lets get on with it. It is a matter that is
important to clarify and have a collective view on. 

 

I will post some issues for a possible separate statement of what worked/
not worked at Rio and suggestions for New Delhi, separately, a little later
today.

 

You may also like to see earlier emails in this thread (search by subject),
and the postings on the online forum on the IGF website at
http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=419.0 where there are postings
by Jeremy, IT for Change, a group of technical community members, and
Afonso. 

 

Parminder

 

PS: the text below is rough ,and will be suitable decorated with all the
necessary pleasantries before presentation. At the end of this week, likely
on Sunday, depending on the how the discussions go, we will put up a final
text for seeking rough consensus. It will be open for 48 hours, and the
co-coordinators will make the judgment if a rough consensus can be called.
This judgment will be open to be appealed against with the appeals
committee.  

 

(starts)

 

We appreciate the transparency measures....  (here we can mention our
appreciation for the new measures, as well as our suggestions how best to
take them forward, which are being discussed in  a separate thread.)  

 

On the issue of the renewal of MAG we have the following points to make. 

 

-         First of all we urge the secretariat to use the full name 'MAG',
instead of AG, at least in the official documents. There is a lot in a name,
and the multistakeholder part is the most important characteristic of this
body. 

 

-         The number of MAG members should be around 40, and one third of
them should be rotated every year. 

 

-         Its membership should be divided equally between governments,
civil society, and business sector. 

 

-         On the issue of representation of technical community it is
important to appreciate that the above three way division is as per
political representation based on interests of, or representation of
different interests through, these three sectors. Technical community's
presence on the other hand is based on the requirement of necessary
expertise, and therefore is of a different nature. This is also clear from
the language of relevant paragraphs of TA. This may not be construed as
undermining the importance of the technical community. The expertise
provided by this community should be appropriately divided between all the
three sectors, and the expertise criteria should be given due importance at
the time of final selection. 

 

-         We are concerned at the over-representation of governments in the
MAG, and under-representation of civil society. We think this should be
corrected at the time of the present rotation. For this purpose the
selection process will have to not just go by getting a new member from the
same sector as the one who is retiring, which will only replicate the
present lopsidedness of the MAG. 

 

-         Stakeholder representatives should be selected based on
appropriate processes of self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do
appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any one stakeholder entity, or
even a given set of them, as completely representing the whole of that
particular stakeholder group. This complicates the process of selection,
especially in the case of civil society and business sectors, and makes for
some scope for the final selecting authority exercising some amount of
judgment.  However, the exercise of such judgment should be done in a
completely transparent manner. Deviations from the self-selection processes
of stakeholder groups should be kept to the minimum and be defensible, and
normally be explained. 

 

-         We find interesting the recommendation of a few members of the
technical community that "AG members should be chosen on the basis of how
large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than
"represent")". We very much agree with this, and will like to further
explore the implications of this criterion.

 

-         All stakeholders should be asked to keep in mind the need to
adequately represent diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where
applicable, special interest groups. 

 

-         The role and necessity of the Special Advisors should be
clarified, as also the criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity
should be represented in the selection of Special Advisors as well.  

 

-         We are of the opinion that in keeping with the multi-stakeholder
nature of the MAG, there should only be one chair who is nominated by the UN
SG. The host country should be able to nominate a deputy chair, an
arrangement that would be helpful in context of various issues of logistics
for the annul IGF meetings. In any case, we will like to understand the
division of work and responsibility between the two chairs, which is the
present arrangement?  Does the UN nominated chair has the central
responsibility of MAG's interface with the UN SG (which, in its present
configuration is MAG's principal role/ responsibility) and the host country
chair of managing IGF meeting logistics? How much role does the host country
chair have in substantive issues? Does not too much of an substantive role
for the host country chair seen together with the fact that IGF is an open
meeting place where the host country will in any case be over-represented
skew the balance of the IGF. It is also to note that a constant government
chair is an inappropriate arrangement for a MS body. It may be too late to
move over to this suggested arrangement for the New Delhi meeting,
especially if the Indian government representative has already taken over as
a co-chair, but we can take a decision for following a new arrangement for
the 2009 meeting onwards. 

 

With 2 years of experience behind us, we would like to have a greater
clarity of the mandate, role and structure of the MAG. Does MAG have any
substantive role at all apart from the responsibility of arranging the
annual IGF meetings? For instance, inter alia, would it not be an
appropriate role for it to discuss how well is the IGF fulfilling its Tunis
mandate? If the MAG does not examine this issue, who is supposed to do it?
Is it left entirely to the secretariat and the UN SG to do so? 

 

We will like MAG to examine its own internal processes for greater
effectiveness. One possibility is to divide work among a couple of working
groups. We will like to see some introspection in the MAG about improving
its decision making processes, or generally, its processes for delivering
substantive outputs. It may, rather should, base such outputs on open
consultation for process related issues, and on the IGF itself for
substantive matters, but there needs to be an adequate process of
formalization of these by the MAG.

 

IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science and
Technology for Development. Does MAG have any role in writing this report?
If not, why so? In real spirit of a multi-stakeholder body we think that an
annual assessment of IGF should be prepared by the MAG itself, and not just
by the UN SG's office. In this context, it will also be appropriate that the
annual report gives information/ assessment as per different parts of
paragraph 72 of TA which lays out the mandate of the IGF. We very much look
forward to such a report which we understand should be ready by the
Information Week events in May, 2008. It should also revisit the overall
spirit of the TA, and the imperatives that it sought to address in the area
of IG, in making its assessment report for the IGF.

 

We will also like to know if the IGF has any plans or possibility for
inter-sessional work? Also, how does IGF relate to national and regional
level IGFs, which have begun to be take shape in some places? Will IGF like
to directly encourage such entities, which are strongly multi-stakeholder,
modeling themselves on the IGF, which will also be in accordance to relevant
parts of Tunis Agenda for WSIS follow up activity at regional and national
levels. 

 

Greater financial support for the IGF, through untied public funds, is one
of the central imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and
consequently, the meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting
among potential funders is being held in Geneva around the February
consultations on this issue, and we look forward to some positive results
from that meeting. 

 

IGF should also fund the participation of at least 5 members of civil
society from developing and least developed countries to ensure meaningful
participation in its open consultations. 

 

(Closing thank you stuff .)

 

(ends)

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au]

> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 12:17 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG

> 

> On 23/01/2008, at 7:47 PM, Parminder wrote:

> 

> > (1)     A main issue is about stakeholder quotas. Should it be

> > fixed, should there be a minimum number, or should there be no such

> > guideline at all and  it be left to the judgment of the ultimate

> > authority for constitution of MAG to come out with an appropriate

> > composition representing the full diversity of stakeholders.

> > (2)     Then there is the issue whether 'technical community' (which

> > also needs some kind of definition) should be considered a separate

> > stakeholder group or not.

> 

> These two questions go together, and as far as I am concerned there

> should not be a division between the two sub-groups, and there should

> be a fixed quota for each of the other three groups.[0]

> 

> A few reasons why there should not be a new stakeholder group for the

> technical community are that:

> 

> * The Tunis Agenda (although pretty confused on the whole question)

> doesn't

>    recognise it as a separate group, but as a segment of the other

> groups;

> 

> * If the technical community is a distinct stakeholder group, then the

>    academic community will argue that it should be also, and if them

> then why

>    not also the press, and if the press then why not also...

> 

> but most importantly:

> 

> * One of the biggest problems with the whole process has been the

> distrust

>    between the technical community and the rest of civil society.  The

>    technical community thinks that civil society is just a bunch of

> whinging

>    career activists who have no understanding of the Internet's

> culture and

>    history.  Civil society thinks that the technical community is an

> insular

>    and hubristic club of technocrats in the pocket of the private

> sector.

>    In my view, if we cannot break down these divisions within broader

> civil

>    society then we have not much chance of tackling the even deeper

> gulfs

>    between civil society and the UN and governments.

> 

> > (3)     How do we see the balance of skills versus representative-

> > ness as criteria for composition of MAG. What other criteria and

> > guidelines are relevant in selecting members.

> 

> This asks the wrong question.  Consider ourselves as the founding

> fathers of a new nation here.  The nation, if it is democratic, does

> not ask, what are the qualities we most want in our government?

> Rather it asks, how do we most transparently allow our citizens to

> select their own government, by whatever criteria *they* see fit?

> 

> Of course, a democracy protects the rights of its minorities through

> mechanisms such as human rights and equal opportunity.  So there is

> merit in allowing criteria of gender equity and regional balance to be

> institutionalised in whatever process for MAG selection is adopted.

> But that is as far as it should go.

> 

> Since we do not have a demos for civil society to elect the members of

> the MAG, the alternative as I have suggested is to form an open,

> voluntary, randomly-selected nominating committee to do so, not unlike

> the IGC's own.  We then have to work on outreach to ensure that this

> NomCom is as diverse as possible.

> 

> > (4)     What percentage of MAG members should rotate annually?

> 

> I would have suggested half, but I'm not going to argue against those

> who are pushing for one third.

> 

> > (5)     How members from each stakeholder group should be chosen?

> > Should it be  a strictly a stakeholder group controlled process,

> > should stakeholder groups give nominations and the UN SG mostly go

> > by it other than for clearly stated reasons like of geo/ gender

> > balance, or it should largely be a UN SG controlled process whereby

> > a good consideration is given to stakeholder nominations.

> 

> It is a fallacy to put forward that UN SG or his delegates are neutral

> parties who bring none of their own values to this process.  In fact,

> from the get-go, Nitin and Markus have been partisan to the interests

> of governments, have pushed to ensure that the IGF remains closely

> controlled by WSIS insiders, have consistently talked down the scope

> of its mandate, and through inaction have limited the scope for

> participation in the IGF by ordinary Internet users.  (But this is not

> personal; of *course* they will do that.  They work for the United

> Nations.)

> 

> The selection of stakeholder representatives *must* be reserved to the

> stakeholder groups themselves, subject only to basic universal

> criteria of social equity.

> 

> > Then there are more structural issues like,

> >

> > (1)     what is the nature and authority/ decision making power of

> > the MAG

> 

> Its authority is going to be very closely tied to its legitimacy.  So

> although, of course, this question needs to be addressed, let's wait

> until after it has been made more representative and accountable

> before doing so.  (That's one reason why I and others have preferred

> to talk about a decision-making MAG in different terms, as a multi-

> stakeholder bureau rather than an "advisory group".)

> 

> > (2)     What kind of decision making processes should be put in

> > place to make MAG effective (we noticed the paralysis it suffered on

> > perhaps the only, and very minor, issue that it has ever tried to

> > take a decision on - selection of speakers for the plenaries.

> 

> Consensus (but expertly facilitated using a consensus workshop process

> or similar, to help ensure that the more powerful stakeholder

> representatives do not abuse their power to silence other voices),

> with a fall-back to voting.

> 

> > (3)     The very important issue of what should be done to ensure

> > transparency and accountability of the MAG.

> 

> I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but open the mailing

> list.  If governments are going to insist on Chatham Rule, then

> someone (hell, I'll volunteer to do it) can easily write a script to

> strip out all identifying headers and sigs from the messages before

> they are publicly archived.

> 

> > There are some other minor issue like the role and selection of the

> > Chair and the relevance and role of a co-chair.

> 

> The co-chairs should rotate between two of the stakeholder groups

> every year.  One of them should be from the host country secretariat.

> 

> [0] This should really be the other four groups, except that

> intergovernmental

>      organisations have only been observers so far and I am not

> proposing that that

>      should change.

> 

> --

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080211/f5f26891/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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