[governance] Reconstituting MAG
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Mon Feb 18 11:44:52 EST 2008
> Parminder, thanks for this.
Thanks to you too. The statement process can do with some engagement.
> The Internet organizations
> (technical/administrative community, whatever,
> the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to
> date, but should continue to be represented as a
> separate stakeholder group.
>
> I disagree with returning to the TA looking for
> rules.
I returned to TA, para 35, to get the stakeholder definition because some
people were not agreeable to resolving the semantic problem about tech
community. Our own feb and may 07 statements speak about tech community as
cross cutting (along with academic community), and at another place, as the
second, non-preferred, option for quota allocation speaks about the
'internet tech community'. Obviously, these two cannot be the same - it is
apparent from the text. But people freely use the term 'tech community' for
this latter category also...
Now when we are asking MAG to clarifying rules, quotas etc (as asked for in
07 statements, and required to be asked now, even more topically) , we
cannot say that well, it is a different matter that we ourselves are not
clear about what these rules and quotas could be. Does it make any sense.
Obviously clarifying rules means also some clarity on what is meant by each
stakeholder category. We don’t know that I don’t see how can we speak about
processes of self-selection - if category itself is not clear who will self
select. Our intervention would be a meaningless gibberish, and would be
taken as regular rhetoric CS is expected to dish out.
So, if we have to have any meaning and internal coherence in asking for CS
quota, clarification of rules, and meaningful self selection, we need to be
ready to get some clarity ourselves. But, well...
IN this para (35 of TA), ICANN plus will be covered under point (e)"
International organizations.... (with a) role in the development of
Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies". And so I
described them as international organizations. You want to call them
internet organizations, I am fine with it. Or International Internet
organizations.
> I disagree with returning to the TA looking for
> rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the
> TA, picking and choosing from that document could
> dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much
> reduced participation, perhaps even text about
> stakeholders acting in their respective roles
First I must agree with that stakeholders in their respective roles with CS
assigned community level role is the dangerous part of TA. I am not sure if
we failed to suggest policy advocacy role, and it was rejected. This role is
accepted in other UN formulations, so I think should stand despite this
omission in TA.
As for going back to TA, I am also for looking forward, but when we find the
forward is going in retrograde directions, like interpreting IGF is a
minimalist manner, with little effectiveness in real public policy manners,
it is better to seek safety of history. So, it all depends on what you real
see as progress, and what regress....
As for IGF structure and mention of the bureau, I think we are not
interpreting it quite right. Bureau I think is meant as a permanent
secretariat like structure, which serves the IGF. We all will agree that
such a process-related admin structure is needed. It is mentioned in para
78 which speaks of support structure and also mentions ITU's role in WSIS.
Now ITU wasn’t any more substantive part of WSIS than other stakeholders,
but yes, it arranged the WSIS.
On IGF proper the operative part of TA is para 74 which call upon the UN SG
to "examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum". This para
speaks about "proven competencies of all stakeholders in Internet governance
and the need to ensure their full involvement", while para 78 speaks about "
any appropriate resources from all interested stakeholders". Obviously 74 is
about IGF proper, and 78 about its support structure.
It was entirely open to UN SG to interpret his freedom in organizing IGF as
given by para 74 to examine and implement the option of a MS committee that
had substantive identity which organized annual open IGF meetings and drew
its legitimacy form it, while decided on process issues taking inputs from
open consultations.
The fact that this has not been done in my view, and many others, is a
regressive development. We have the right to go back to TA to seek what we
think are 'corrections'.
>The MAG itself is an interpretation of the
> TA
You in an earlier email claimed legitimacy to the present organization of
IGF from the first IGF consultations. I do not know who all attended, and
represented what interests. It was too soon after WSIS and most stakeholders
weren’t well organized for post WSIS (not that they are at present). This
interpretation of what IGF and MAG will be is too big a thing to be decided
by that small group. The issue should have been opened at Athens IGF to the
full meeting - but at that time (and still is) there is a great hesitancy
to allow structural issues to be examined. They refused IGFs proposal for a
plenary on IGF role and mandate. BTW, the readiness to go back to TA to
ensure our interests is the position of the IGC, as expressed in that main
theme proposal, and the workshop we held.
> I believe we should be looking to increase the
> number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?)
> not trying to put things back in WSIS style
> boxes. Expanding participation is progress.
But we cant be blind to the directions of this expansion. Giganet may be
fine, but what about the telecentre and ICTD groups Michael Gurstein keep
claiming representation for. We go back to boxes, only when we see safety in
the boxes. CS's fight for progressive interests is a big ongoing struggle,
and various kinds of cooptions is one of the main things it is often up
against.
> >• As per above, if we leave, say, 6
> >seats for international organizations,
>
>
> Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role.
> (And is it international organizations or
> intergovernmental organizations and is there any
> difference in the UN... I should know this!)
IG part of TA mention international organization in the meaning of what you
call Internet organizations (see para 35 e). Only those orgs that are
involved in internet related standards and policy are meant here (some
inter-gov organizations like ITU can claim to be included in this category
but not all).
> I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and Erick.
Yes, completely my fault. I picked up the number from memory of some
discussion on this list. Will correct accordingly.
Parminder
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
>
>
> >
>
> snip
>
> >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
> >Agenda¹s 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.
>
>
> The Internet organizations
> (technical/administrative community, whatever,
> the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to
> date, but should continue to be represented as a
> separate stakeholder group.
>
> I disagree with returning to the TA looking for
> rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the
> TA, picking and choosing from that document could
> dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much
> reduced participation, perhaps even text about
> stakeholders acting in their respective roles.
>
> I believe we should be looking to increase the
> number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?)
> not trying to put things back in WSIS style
> boxes. Expanding participation is progress.
>
>
>
> >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6
> >seats for international organizations,
>
>
> Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role.
> (And is it international organizations or
> intergovernmental organizations and is there any
> difference in the UN... I should know this!)
>
>
> > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be
> >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil
> >society members
>
>
> I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and Erick.
>
> That's all for now.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> >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 MAG¹s 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 Œinterfacing¹, advising¹,
> >identifying issues¹, Œgiving recommendations¹
> >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
> > >
> >
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / )
> (00508305)
> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC»)
> (00508306)
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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
____________________________________________________________
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list