[governance] Reconstituting MAG - and one last sentence

[Carlos Afonso]

I agree with Peter.

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
>> At least one quarter of the MAG membership must be drawn from Civil Society
> 
> I don't remember consensus on this and I believe this sentence should be dropped. CS representation should be equal with government and public sector, that's the bottom line I think, not some percentage of the whole.
> 
> 
> Can we agree to drop this sentence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian Peter
> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St  Brisbane 4000
> Australia
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
> www.ianpeter.com
> www.internetmark2.org
> www.nethistory.info
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] 
> Sent: 23 February 2008 05:50
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
> 
> Parminder, here's the re-send of my edit of your 
> text on the Reconstituting of the MAG.
> 
> There have been a few comments since, some I can 
> remember (there may well be more...) are:
> 
> Move reason for calling the advisory group the 
> "multi-stakeholder advisory group" MAG to the top 
> of the statement.
> 
> Somewhere below I wrote "[I think planning the 
> year ahead impossible given the evolving nature 
> of the IGF]."  My misunderstanding, withdraw that 
> comment.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21
>  
> 
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1293 - Release Date: 22/02/2008 09:21
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
direção colegiada, Rits (Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor)
conselheiro, CGI.br (Comitê Gestor da Internet no Brasil)
*******************************************************************
Projeto Sacix - Apoio técnico a iniciativas de inclusão digital com
software livre, mantido pela Rits em colaboração com o Coletivo
Digital. Para mais informações:
www.sacix.org.br     www.rits.org.br     www.coletivodigital.org.br
*******************************************************************


____________________________________________________________
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