for Karen [Fwd: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG]

[Jeanette Hofmann]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
Date: 	Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:46:14 +0530
From: 	Parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: 	governance at lists.cpsr.org,"Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	<governance at lists.cpsr.org>



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.



____________________________________________________________
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 embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080222/bb95440a/attachment.txt>