[governance] IGC statements

[Parminder]

> Milton mentioned keeping the MAG as small as
> possible.  Would it help to add a sentence before
> we say "We think 40 is a good number..." such as:

Yes, I have had this concern in mind that Milton had opposed the number 40.
While I empathize with his reasons, a lot of the members thought 40 was
right, and I don't think we can avoid making some comment on the size of the
MAG in this statement. 

> The MAG should be large enough so that its
> members bring the required balance of stakeholder
> interests, diversity and experience, but not so
> large as to cause the group to be inefficient.

Also, since we are recommending WGs, and this could become one of the main
rallying points for this consultations, it is difficult to have WGs in a
very small MAG. But I can put in the above text that you suggest before the
sentence "We think 40 is a good number..."

> I am still concerned Special Advisers can add to
> the number in a pretty uncontrolled way, but too
> late to be drafting additional text about that.

I agree with you on this. I can add something to this effect in the part on
special advisors. What about saying - the number of special advisors should
be kept within reasonable limits. 

I will try to put out the text for rough consensus today, but if I am not
able to do it now, certainly by early morning GMT tommorow. That would still
leave us with 48 hours to the consultations. In any case Karen's text is as
good as final. Only some cleaning up, and some small language edits etc, may
still be needed.


Parminder 





> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:29 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder
> Subject: RE: [governance] IGC statements
> 
> Milton mentioned keeping the MAG as small as
> possible.  Would it help to add a sentence before
> we say "We think 40 is a good number..." such as:
> 
> The MAG should be large enough so that its
> members bring the required balance of stakeholder
> interests, diversity and experience, but not so
> large as to cause the group to be inefficient.
> 
> I am still concerned Special Advisers can add to
> the number in a pretty uncontrolled way, but too
> late to be drafting additional text about that.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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