[governance] Reconstituting MAG
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Thu Feb 21 07:16:14 EST 2008
The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow.
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. We appreciate the new measures of
transparency taken with respect to MAG's working. 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 topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed
manner, in which case such topics should be listed, and summary of
discussions provided as appropriate.
Membership of the MAG
(text to be decided.) Since the process that built towards Meryem/ Ian
formulation failed, I will request someone to suggest fresh text for this.
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.
* 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,
which should be truly multi-stakeholder. 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.
_____
From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 12:51 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG (Tech/admin language)
Firstly, I am enclosing the draft on 'reconstituting MAG' that we are
discussing at present. (also put below this email) (I am still to
incorporate changes like - removing the number 40, removing all numbers as
well etc. Will do in the morning.)
To this an opening para will be added. Something very roughly like
"We appreciate the new measures of transparency taken with respect to MAG's
working. 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
topics are expressly chosen to be dealt in a closed manner, in which case
such topics should be listed, and summary of discussions provided as
appropriate."
Now on this long discussion on the 'tech community' issue. There is enough
opposition to getting into any kind of details on the matter of how MAG's
membership should be vis a vis different stakeholders, and views in favor of
saying something simply like - CS is under-represented and this should be
corrected in this round (I will pick from the emails and construct
appropriate language, but basically this is the point)
Fine. But it leaves me with some problems. There are two key parts of the
statement, the MAG membership part and the 'MAG role and structure' part,
and in addition some other specific issues.
The part other than on MAG membership received a few early comment, and if I
remember right, all positive (pl correct me if I am wrong). Further comments
may also be given.
Now in the MAG membership part, there were three substantive parts. Firstly,
about how we want the MAG seats apportioned. But that has not received
consensus and will not go in. However, the question that now comes up is
(about the second substantive part) - can we ask for clarity from the
secretariat on MAG composition, quota, stakeholder description etc kind of
issues without ourselves suggesting anything at all. And when we ourselves
refuse to be clear on these issues. Is it defensible to ask secretariat to
be clear and share its 'clarity' as well, in such circumstances. So please
let me know what to do with this part. We did ask in caucus's 07 statements
for some clarity on these issues.
And about the third substantive part, I am also not sure how can we ask for
self-selection of each stakeholder category. I would think self-selection
will require the secretariat to recognize some parameters of what or who can
go into a category. So, in fact, we will be asking them to name all
categories, and some definition of what constitutes these categories. Should
we then ask only for self selection for CS (well, hypothetically, if they do
agree, we will quickly have to resume this discussion that some are keen to
end, and we will HAVE to establish some criteria of who all can be included
and who cant, and on what grounds etc)
In all these contexts, I am not at all clear what can go in this part of the
statement. Suggestions will be hugely appreciated.
Also pl also close comments on the other parts, which have (I think) found
no negative comment, but still not enough comments.
Parminder
(Its late here, and I will be able to respond only after about 8 hours)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080221/cbd4c5d4/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list