[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[McTim]

hi,

kudos for the draft.  Comments inline:

On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2008 8:53 AM, Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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.)

fine

>
>
>
> 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.
>
>

ok

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

I think it is an unwieldy number.  I would prefer 20, but could
stretch to 30 (still too big imho). I understand that it will be
unlikely to move off 40 tho.

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

and the technical community


>
> -         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.
>

I think this might backfire in re; getting the kind of CS folk that
you (and some others on the list) seek.  To get adequate
representation on the MAG for the technical community, most of those
"slots" would need to come from CS side, so at a minimum, I would say
that we (as CS seeking expertise) would want;

1 ICANN staff (currently T. Swinehart)
1 ISOC staff (representing users) (currently Matt Shears)
1 (non-profit) gTLD person (.org?, no rep as of now IIRC)
1 (non-profit) ccTLD person (currently Emily Taylor/Chris Disspain)
1 NRO/numbering community person (currently AA)
1 IETF person (IETF) (currently Pat Fältström)
1 W3C person (currently Daniel Dardailler)

This would give adequate "clue", but take up about half of the CS
"slots", leaving 6 or 7 (if divided equally) for academics and other
NGOs working in this space.  Is that enough for the "human rights,
ICT4D, intellectual property, international trade and global
electronic commerce, access to knowledge, and security" (quote from
our charter).

Business interests may appoint one or two Inet community folk, but I
don't think Gov'ts will (perhaps ITU persons already in Geneva, but
they probably don't think of themselves as internet technical
community folk).

In any case, it seems likely that 40 will be the number, it also seems
unlikely that there will be consensus in the MAG to remove the 4th
stakeholder group.

as for this list, I am counting ~50 of ~300 individuals on the list as
being Inet "technical community" folk, I doubt there will be consensus
here to remove the 4th stakeholder group either.

>
>
> -         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.
>

fine

>
>
> -         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.

no objection

>
>
>
> -         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.
>

ok, I guess. potential can o worms tho.  For example, the govt of
India could claim to "connect to" every single person in India,
IT4Change and ISOC India could try to make the same claim.

Can't wait to hear MM explain why this is a "trick" tho ;-).

On his point that "most technical people work for business", well I
have written often and extensively on this list that those people
participate in IG fora NOT as employees of a business, but (like
myself) as individuals, concerned mostly with the health and
well-being of the network (security and stability in I* speak). This
is probably more true in the numbering and standards bodies than in
the domain side, but there are still loads of folk who participate in
domain side IG stuff trying to better the Internet rather than their
employers bottom line.

All in all, there are many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of
volunteer person hours put in annually on "IG" work by people who
participate in fora operated by non-profit organisations. These
technical people may be "technically" employed by businesses, but that
doesn't mean they aren't involved in CS activities.

>
>
> -         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.
>
>

fine

>
> -         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.
>

ok

>
>
> -         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.

ok

>
>
>
> 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?
>

ok

>
>
> 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.
>

no objection

>
>
> 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.
>

ok

>
>
> 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.
>

ok

>
>
> 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.
>

Do you mean participation in MAG open consultations, or participation
in the MAG itself?

>
>
> (Closing thank you stuff …)
>
>
>
> (ends)
>

--
Cheers,

McTim
$ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim
____________________________________________________________
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