[governance] Reconstituting MAG

[Parminder]

Jeanette

> My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how
> greater clarity should be derived.

Sorry, but I didn’t understand this. Do you mean that there is none who is supposed to have that answer. This is just the structure-in-the-air thing about IGF that many push for and I don’t understand. 

If CS is not asking questions, what is it doing. For us MAG is the contact point for IGF (I have none other, and if you can think of any, pl tell me)so we ask questions of it, without starting to worry too much about how poor MAG will answer them. 

Now, if there is no process of getting clarity on any point, and no one is supposed to have any degree of clarity on anything, why are we making this statement all, and to whom.. The whole thing gives me almost a ghostly scare. Who is MAG, who is IGF, who knows anything, who decides anything...

If we suggest an IGF workshop on this
> topic, we should say so.

You think an IGF workshop can clarify this matter. I am interested, pl tell me how. Do you mean if we hold a workshop where there is absolute consensus, and no dissent at all, about a given set of roles of MAG, then that will be it. We are not making tech standards in IETF, we are a political public policy space. BTW, even if there were by some strange luck absolute consensus among each and every person at an IGF workshop, then still where does this consensus show - -there are no outcomes documents. I don’t know what will be the means to prove that consensus. 

> The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we want
> the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on
> that.

Each of these terms, as you know, is from tunis agenda. And the present draft text says that "to carry out some part of the mandate which requires ‘interfacing’, advising’, identifying issues’, ‘giving recommendations’ etc..."

So, there is no expansion of the role. On the other hand a contraction of the role is the real issue. Our May 07 statement on substantive themes for Rio, in the text on calling for a workshop on the role and mandate of the IGF, did recognize all these as parts of the mandate of the IGF. And it went as a rough consensus statement. 

Parminder 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:15 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Adam Peake
> Cc: Parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Adam, thank you for putting together this new version. I agree with all
> the suggested changes, in particular with deleting the paragraph in the
> section "role and structure of the MAG" that discusses the
> authority and identity of the MAG.
> 
> In my view, the paragraph before (following below) could also be deleted
> or should be reformulated:
> 
> 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.
> 
> My problem with the first sentence is that it doesn't mention how
> greater clarity should be derived. If we suggest an IGF workshop on this
> topic, we should say so.
> The second sentence I find problematic because it implies that we want
> the MAG to expand its role and tasks. I don't think we have consensus on
> that.
> 
> I support Adam's suggestion to include some of these issues in the stock
> taking session and accompanying workshops. The specific role of the MAG
> could be one of these issues.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Adam Peake wrote:
> > 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
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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