[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

Some quick points on the statement below.

 

I mean to add to the statement the point on appreciating the new measures of
transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. And that we are of the
view that MAG should work through two elists - one open and other closed.
Since MAG discusses issues of public importance, normally discussions should
be open to public scrutiny. However we do understand that there can be some
circumstances requiring closed discussions. All discussions taken to the
closed list should be listed, and summaries of them provided as appropriate.
By the same rule transcripts should be provided of all face to face meetings
of the MAG, unless some topic is expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed
manner, in which case this topic should be listed, and summary of discussion
provided as appropriate.

 

Milton, Meryem, McKnight and others who have reservation on the number 40 -
do you want the sentence 'We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members'
struck off. I  am unable to specifically call for reducing the number since
there seems to be considerable opposition to this.

 

Some members seemed in favor of putting some mathematics in the statement to
make a clear case for increased number for CS.  For this reason I do have to
go by the present number 40, in this part of the statement. Meryem, you
wanted me not to quote the number that can be reserved for the International
Internet orgs reps - but I have gone by the number 6 which a few of us
quoted, because that allows me to complete the calculations for the asked
for CS numbers. In any case this number is clearly against a total of 40, so
there can be no confusion about how this number may be interpreted.

 

Bill, do you have some text to add on inter-sessional aspect, apart from the
WGs I have mentioned? 

 

On funding issue, McTim, you have asked - Do I  mean participation in MAG
open consultations, or participation  > in the MAG itself? I meant in the
open consultations for non MAG members, but yes CS MAG members, esp, from
dev/ LD countries also need support. Will add. 

 

Should we acknowledge that the Swiss gov contribution is a very useful and
constructive input, and we will like a discussion taken up on the various
points made in the doc (or something like that). (available at
http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_General_2008.html )

 

Parminder 

 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 10:26 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG

 

 

I have a closer-to-final text of the MAG reconstitution statement. I have
checked all contributions I think, but will check again in the morning and
add/ change as appropriate. If anyone had made a suggestion and it is not
there, pl do not hesitate at all to let me know. 

Parminder

 

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of MAG renewal
/ restructuring 

With Athens and Rio meetings behind us, we are of the opinion that IGF is
getting firmly established as the key global forum for an inclusive dialogue
on various Internet policy issues. This has led to different stakeholder
groups beginning to understand and appreciate each others viewpoints, which
sets the context of a socially and politically engaged development of the
Internet through appropriate policy guidance as required. 

Rio brought in new topics for discussion, and also tried new forms of
interactions. These are all steps in the right direction. However, we think
that IGF, New Delhi, should take some firm steps toward realizing the full
potential of this unique global institution. 

In a later statement we will provide inputs on possible improvements in the
format for IGF, New Delhi, and the themes that should be taken up in the
main sessions. Here we will present some suggestions regarding renewal and
restructuring of MAG.

MAG is the driving seat of the IGF, and restructuring MAG is basic to making
the IGF more effective and productive. 

Membership of the MAG

*      We think that 40 is a good number for MAG members. One third of MAG
members should be rotated every year. 

*      The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of
representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and
make open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda's
multi-stakeholder approach, membership should be divided equally among
governments, civil society and the business sector. TA also rightly
recognizes international organizations involved in IG as a stakeholder
category, and they should be allowed an appropriate number of seats in the
MAG. 

*      As per above, if we leave, say, 6 seats for international
organizations, out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be entitled to 11
seats. There are five civil society members at present in a MAG of 40, an
anomaly which should be corrected in this round of rotation of members.
Obviously, this cannot happen if we replace each retiring member with one
from the same stakeholder group. Full civil society representation is
necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global governance.

*      Stakeholder representatives should be chosen 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 a degree of judgment. This, however, 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.

*      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.

Special Advisors and Chair 

*      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, 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, in the present arrangement?
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 the co-chair, but we can take a decision now about the
post-Delhi phase.

Role and Structure of the MAG 

With the experience of two years of IGF, it is also the right time to
re-visit the role and the structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list
out the functions that MAG is expected to play. 

*      One function is of course to make all arrangements for the annual IGF
meeting. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying out this function.
What more needs to be done by MAG to further improve the effectiveness of
the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG must review its decision making
processes to make them more effective. These are especially important if IGF
is to evolve into something more than what it is today, to enable it to
fulfill all aspects of its mandate. 

*      It will be very useful for MAG to work through working groups. These
WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops connected
to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing internal tasks of
MAG more effectively. 

*      We will also like greater clarity at this point whether MAG has any
substantive identity other than advising the UN SG. For instance, to carry
out some part of the mandate which requires 'interfacing', advising',
identifying issues', 'giving recommendations' etc, MAG needs to be able to
represent IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can cohere in
the UN SG. 

*      Having some authority and identity of its own is also required for
MAG to do some important regular tasks like assessing how well is the Tunis
Agenda mandate being fulfilled by the IGF and what more needs to be done.
Does MAG ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an exercise? If not
MAG, who would carry out this exercise, which needs to be done with full
engagement of all stakeholders. 

*      An annual report needs to be submitted by the IGF to the UN
Commission on Science and Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in preparing
this annual report, at present? It is appropriate that MAG prepares and
submits this report, with engagement of all stakeholder members. 

*      (Alternate text for the above point since CSTD is an
inter-governmental body and there is nothing very exciting about it. But
every organization including IGF should have an annual report.) MAG should
prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should mention IGF
activities and performance for the year against relevant parts of the TA
which lays out its mandate, and also outline plans for the year ahead. 

*      IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, and a
specific plan should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a WG.
Such a need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of TA.

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. 

In the end, we appeal that we all use the full term MAG at least for
official purposes, because multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect
of the IGF. 

Thank you. 

 

 

 

 

 

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

> From: Ken Lohento [mailto:klohento at panos-ao.org]

> Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM

> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

> Cc: Parminder

> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG

> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080218/19be62d1/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