[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

Bill

 

On others things a bit later, but I wanted to clarify one point. 

 

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

 

Pl see the opening part of the draft statement. 

 

>>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.)  

 

The discussion being carried out under the thread 'communicating with our
peers' will provide us the substance for this part. It is meant to be
included in the opening part of the statement.

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2008 5:55 PM
To: Singh, Parminder; Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG

 

Hi,

A few observations in relation to Parminder's 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.  It's 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 won't be
possible in this case with the consultation being soon, but down the road
wouldn't it make sense to put one up linked to whichever website we want to
use going forward, Adam's old one www.net-gov.org or Avri's 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
listeners' 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 it's a
non-starter on political grounds and support Parminder's 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 isn't acute across
the board.  On the other hand, it would seem that some don't 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
we'd 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 don't come in order
to have diversity on the masthead seems like a wasted opportunity.    

Technical and Administrative Community.  We've had this debate on and off
since WGIG, and while I always argued for the position reiterated in
Parminder's 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 we'd 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
I'm inclined to support Adam's 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. Wouldn't hurt to note that on this we agree with PS & T&A.

Inter-sessional Work and Mandate. To me these are key topics.  I'm glad
Parminder touched them, but I'm not sure a series of questions on each is
the most effective approach.  I wonder whether it'd 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.  We've had this parallel thread but the issue's not mentioned in
the draft statement.  Wouldn't it have more oomph if we did it here rather
than just as an informal 'sense of the caucus' conveyed by Adam and Jeanette
to the mAG?  It seems that there's support for two lists, subject to Adam's
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 Jeremy's desire regard the third inclusive list but just don't
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 '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)
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080213/4269fc3a/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