[governance] Reconstituting MAG

Tue Feb 12 07:25:24 EST 2008

Hi,

A few observations in relation to Parminder¹s promising draft statement and
related matters.

Drafting Process.  This has been said a number of times by various people
since the WSIS days but again, it really would be a lot easier to work out
consensus on draft texts using a wiki.  It¹s pretty labor intensive trying
to dig through list traffic in order to keep straight multiple conversations
on different points in the text and figure out the state of play on each,
particularly when all messages have the same heading.   Maybe it won¹t be
possible in this case with the consultation being soon, but down the road
wouldn¹t it make sense to put one up linked to whichever website we want to
use going forward, Adam¹s old one www.net-gov.org or Avri¹s newer one
www.igcaucus.org?  (Also would be nice consolidate all docs at whichever,
many caucus statements etc are at neither---would need a little WG to do
this stuff I guess).

Document Format and Distribution.  We have often made statements of 1-2
pages covering multiple points and just read them out, and inevitably some
of those points fail to resonate and remain focal points of the conversation
as listeners¹ attention wanders etc.  Might not it make sense to a) have
topical headers for each point or cluster of points, b) in making the
statement, signal the chair that we would particularly welcome follow-on
discussion on xyz so he explicitly puts it to the floor, and c) put a big
stack of hard copies at the back of the room next to the inevitable ISOC/ICC
snazzily formatted contributions?

Number and Composition of MAG Members.  While I understand the rationale for
Milton and McTim suggesting a radical reduction in numbers, I suspect it¹s a
non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder¹s wording on size and
rotation.  On reducing the number of government participants, on the hand,
this is tough not only because of the regional formulas etc but also just
because of the need for political buy-in, which obviously isn¹t acute across
the board.  On the other hand, it would seem that some don¹t contribute much
to the dialogue and that their presence has not translated into financial
and political support for IGF.  Would it be sensible to add a sentence or so
suggesting a slight reduction in the context of overall rebalancing and that
we¹d hope that only governments that are prepared to attend and actively
contribute would seek to be represented?  Or would that be viewed as unfair
to lurkers needed on diversity grounds, e.g. LDCs?

In a similar vein (I guess this goes to both selection and rotation), would
it be sensible to suggest a no empty seats sort of rule? Empanelling and
retaining people that are not in a position to or just don¹t come in order
to have diversity on the masthead seems like a wasted opportunity.

Technical and Administrative Community.  We¹ve had this debate on and off
since WGIG, and while I always argued for the position reiterated in
Parminder¹s draft (which has never been particularly well received by anyone
other than a few developing country governments), arguably, that ship set
sail some time ago.  The decision was made to (over) include them, albeit
sans explicit labeling, so to now argue that they removed even if only as an
implicit category is a rather divisive proposition, and one on which we¹d be
unlikely to get consensus or prevail.  So do we want to go back and restart
the argument, which would probably not play out in a reasoned manner,
invites broader ontological debates (what is CS, what is the public
interest...), and could distract attention from other issues?  At this point
I¹m inclined to support Adam¹s view,

> My problem with the technical community isn't
> that they are represented, but there are too
> many.  11 or 12 I think, with only 6 or 7 from
> private sector and civil society respectively.
> And I think people generally recognize a close
> alignment between the private sector and
> technical community (it is certainly apparent
> inside the MAG.)  So I would rather see a
> rebalancing, for example with perhaps the tech
> community dropped to 5 or 6 of the roles McTim

Co-chairs.  Agree with the point but think the pararaph could be more
concise. Wouldn¹t hurt to note that on this we agree with PS & T&A.

Inter-sessional Work and Mandate.  To me these are key topics.  I¹m glad
Parminder touched them, but I¹m not sure a series of questions on each is
the most effective approach.  I wonder whether it¹d be possible for us to
positively state the case for something, e.g. a MAG-linked but more open WG
(I think we once endorsed WGs, know I did, and APC did more recently...)

Listservs.  We¹ve had this parallel thread but the issue¹s not mentioned in
the draft statement.  Wouldn¹t it have more oomph if we did it here rather
than just as an informal sense of the caucus¹ conveyed by Adam and Jeanette
to the mAG?  It seems that there's support for two lists, subject to Adam¹s
proviso,

> Could this tendency be avoided if before a thread's started on the
> closed list or moved to the closed list there must be a note about
> this on the open list. All would then know there was a discussion
> going on, and at some point it would be summarized back (in some
> form).  If the closed list were used to excess then it should be
> obvious.

I understand Jeremy¹s desire regard the third inclusive list but just don¹t
see mAG people, particularly governmentals, doing this.

Cheers,

Bill

On 2/11/08 6:53 AM, "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>  
> (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 MAG¹,
> 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 community¹s 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 ³AG members should be chosen on the basis of how
> large and diverse a community they connect to (which is different than
> "represent")². 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 MAG¹s interface with
> the UN SG (which, in its present configuration is MAG¹s 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 SG¹s 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)
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080212/bacbe4b6/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