[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

Adam thanks for all the work.

Just a couple of relatively minor points to clarify.

> * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate
> for the MAG to do.  It is something we should
> recommended in the other contribution be
> addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably)
> part of the taking stock/way forward session and
> associated workshops.] 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.

Really don’t understand why and how MAG as the body driving the IGF may not from time to time assess how IGF is shaping up, and whether it is fulfilling its mandate. To do that and take corrective steps if necessary I would think is the whole job of the MAG, isnt it. 

, and
> also outline plans for the year ahead [I think
> planning the year ahead impossible given the
> evolving nature of the IGF].

Well, there are always some priorities for the next IGF, some things from the last IGF etc, some other specific plans - like it was this time to assess transparency bec of UN SG's message - etc. Puts some structure on what MAG and IGF does, and are supposed to do. In any case it is good to give some substantive responsibilities to the MAG other than the 3 tasks it does at present - choose main themes, choose workshops, and choose main session speakers.... They are quite under-employed I would say.

Parminder 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 6:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Parminder, I've cleaned up the mixed fonts etc.  Hopefully now plain text.
> 
> I've edited and where important noted the new text.
> 
> 
> 
> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's
> input on issue of multi-stakeholder advisory
> group (MAG) renewal / restructuring  [added
> multi-stakeholder advisory group to the title]
> 
> 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.
> 
> **** Then I'll try (following is a mix of old and new text)
> 
> [start]
> * We think that 40 is a good number for MAG
> members. One third of MAG members should be
> rotated every year.
> 
> * In the interest of transparency and
> understanding the responsibilities of MAG
> members, when making appointments to the MAG we
> ask the Secretary General to explain which
> interested group that person is associated with.
> 
> * Civil society has been under represented in the
> multi-stakeholder advisory groups appointed in
> 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be corrected
> in this round of rotation and a fair balance of
> members between all stakeholders assured. At
> least one quarter of the MAG membership must be
> drawn from Civil Society. Fair civil society
> representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy
> for this new experiment in global governance.
> [all the stuff about numbers deleted]
> 
> * 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.  [some words deleted from the end of
> the last sentence, think they were too much to
> demand]
> 
> * When recommending members of the MAG all
> stakeholders should ensure diversity in terms of
> gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
> interest groups. [some change to wording]
> 
> [no comments on other stakeholders, just focus on CS]
> 
> [end]
> 
> 
> 
> Special Advisors and Chair
> 
> * The need for Special Advisors, their role in
> the MAG and criteria for their selection should
> be clarified. Consideration for diversity as
> mentioned above must be maintained in the
> selection of Special Advisors. [some change to
> wording]
> 
> * 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 the suggested new 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.
> 
> * [delete this para - I don't think appropriate
> for the MAG to do.  It is something we should
> recommended in the other contribution be
> addressed by the New Delhi meeting as (probably)
> part of the taking stock/way forward session and
> associated workshops.] 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 [I think
> planning the year ahead impossible given the
> evolving nature of the IGF]. [new:] We suggest
> this report, once adopted by the Secretary
> General would also satisfy the requirements of
> para 75 of the Tunis Agenda and prepare for
> discussion about the desirability of continuing
> the Forum beyond 2010.
> 
> * 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.
> 
> replace "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." with  New:  The
> United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is
> the outcome of a UN process and should ensure
> that it has the resources it needs to fulfil its
> mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005.
> [from APC statement] We have great respect and
> appreciation for the work of the Secretariat,
> while severely under-funded it has still been
> responsible for many of IGF's successes.  The
> Secretariat should be provided with resources
> needed to perform its role effectively.  In
> addition, a fund should be established to support
> the participation of people from  developing and
> least developed countries in the IGF annual
> meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
> 
> 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 "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG at
> least for official purposes, because
> multi-stakeholderism is the most important aspect
> of the IGF.
> 
> END
> 
> Hope the suggested changes are clear.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >The MAG reconstitution draft stands follow.
> >
> >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus¹s
> >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 MAG¹s 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 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.
> >·          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
> >
> >³We appreciate the new measures of transparency
> >taken with respect to MAG¹s 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.²
> >
> >Now on this long discussion on the Œtech
> >community¹ issue. There is enough opposition to
> >getting into any kind of details on the matter
> >of how MAG¹s 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 ŒMAG role and structure¹
> >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 Œclarity¹
> >as well, in such circumstances. So please let me
> >know what to do with this part. We did ask in
> >caucus¹s 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 categoriesŠ 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 Caucus¹s
> >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
> >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.
> >·      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 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.
> >
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >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