[governance] IGC statements

Parminder parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Feb 23 03:29:42 EST 2008


The draft on reconstituting MAG stands as follows. 

Adam, I have removed stuff you recommended removing, including the para on
MAG assessing IGF's performance on fulfilling mandate, and slightly modified
the para before that. 

I have removed three paras from the opening part, and moved special advisors
and chairs part to the end, which the speaker may run over quickly if
constrained for time. 


Parminder . 

(the draft of reconstituting MAG)

The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus's input on issue of
multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG) renewal / restructuring

At the outset, of this statement on renewal of MAG, the civil Society IGC 
appeals 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. 

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

* 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. The rules for membership of the MAG should
be clearly established, and made open along with due justifications.

* 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. Fair civil
society representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new
experiment in global governance. 

* We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet
administration and the development of Internet-related technical standards
should continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation
should not be at the expense of civil society participation.

* 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.  

* When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure
diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, special
interest groups.



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, in some form or the
other, needs to be able to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical
that these tasks can cohere in the UN SG.

* 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. 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.

Funding of IGF, and Participation 

*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. 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.

(more text on participation of currently under-represented communities to be
added here, as per Izumi's email. Ill try that in a while)

(Lastly on) 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. 

* 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.

END
>      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



More information about the Governance mailing list