[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On 11/02/2008, at 2:53 PM, Parminder wrote:

> 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.

On the other hand the multi-stakeholder composition of the group goes  
without saying.  I'm more concerned about the word "Advisory".  I  
don't mind leaving this unchanged if other people feel more strongly  
about it than I do, but I wouldn't put it first.

> -         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.

Fine and fine.

> -         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.

Very good.

> -         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.

Fine and fine.

> -         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.

Let's not express our desire to explore it, which is irrelevant unless  
we already have explored it and have some other insights to  
contribute.  Also, I do not want to deprecate the use of the term  
"representative" in a broader context than that of representative  
democracy.  It is well understood that representativeness also extends  
to the ability to understand and speak for specific interests in fora  
where those interests are being challenged.  It need not mean "one- 
vote, one value".

> -         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.

Fine and fine.

> -         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.

Personally I would suggest that both co-chairs, rather than just the  
host country chair, should rotate between the stakeholder groups.

> 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.

Good!

> IGF submits an annual report to the UN ECOSOC Commission on Science  
> and Technology for Development.

Does it?  From where does this obligation arise?

> 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.

To me, this reads as though we are commending the regional IGFs for  
being strongly multi-stakeholder and modelling themselves on the IGF,  
but I'm not sure they are or do.  The UK "IGF", for example, isn't  
really anything of the sort.  It's nothing but a two-hour seminar (see http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/dutton/2008/01/23/uks-internet-governance-forum-civil-society-needs-to-get-on-board/) 
.  Can we re-word this to change "which are strongly multi- 
stakeholder" to "which should be strongly multi-stakeholder", etc?

> 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.

Fine and fine.

Thanks Parminder.

-- 
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