[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

> 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.

 

 

What about the following text.

 

•         The rules for membership of the MAG, including in terms of
representation of different stakeholders, should be clearly established, and
made open along with due justifications. We think that as per Tunis Agenda’s
multi-stakeholder approach, ideally membership should be divided equally
among governments, civil society and the business sector. However, we agree
that Internet organizations should continue to be represented as a separate
stakeholder group in the MAG. Their current over-representation however
should be corrected in the envisaged process of rotation of members.  

 

. There are some views that a smaller MAG may be more effective. However if
we go by the present membership of MAG which is 40, 6 should be a good
number for representing Internet organizations. Out of the remaining 34
seats civil society should be entitled to 11 seats. There are seven civil
society members at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which should also 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.

 

The present text is as follows.

 

·         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.

 

 

 

> -----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

> 

> Parminder, thanks for this.

> 

> >

> 

> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080218/1f203e4b/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