[governance] Reconstituting MAG
Ian Peter
ian.peter at ianpeter.com
Tue Jan 8 23:32:24 EST 2008
Given Jeanette's comments, a couple of points to keep moving on
I see the difficulty with "reconstitute" Perhaps we can work on "repopulate
the MAG - but with a recommendation to SG that up to a maximum of 50% be
reappointed to provide continuity".
And as regards proportional representation - given the difficulties Jeanette
pointed out, it's going to be difficult to insist on one third being
nominated by CS groups directly. But we should be aiming for one third total
any way -
So maybe something like "we believe that equal representation of the three
major stakeholder groups - government, business, and civil society is in the
best interests of advancing the multistakeholder concept. As regards the
full complement of representatives who might broadly be seen to represent
various aspects of civil society, we believe it is the best interests of
stakeholder balance, transparent operation and reporting, and involvement of
a wider group of stakeholders, that at east 75% of the civil society
representatives be chosen from a broad range of candidates submitted by the
Civil Society Caucus."
Just a few thoughts because I think it is important that we do respond, with
a consensus position if possible.
Ian Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
Sent: 08 January 2008 23:32
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: 'Parminder'
Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG
Hi, the advisory group began discussing these issues in December.
Rotation is just one of the issues. Quite a few people supported a
rotation of 30% of all members.
Another issue concerns the size of the group, the role of advisors to
the chair and the role of observers. Should we define an upper limit for
members and advisors? Are advisors necessary at all?
We also discussed whether members should be selected by the stakeholders
or by the secretariat in accordance with the UN SG. I agree with Ian
that any balance between regions, skills and gender can only be reached
if the various stakeholder don't have the last word but can only suggest
people.
The perhaps most difficult question concerns the balance between the
various stakeholder groups. So far there is no strict proportional rule.
Its up to the secretariat backed by New York to figure out who gets how
many seats without discrediting the entire entity. Yes, in quantitative
terms governments are clearly over-represented. But at least so far,
this governmental over-representation doesn't translate into
corresponding influence. Right now, the advisory group either reaches
broad consensus on something or it doesn't. What is more, governments
don't necessarily agree on many of the contested issues. So, a few
members more or less should not be mistaken for more or less power.
I don't see any advantage in strictly defined proportions between the
various groups but would argue for a minimum representation of the
various groups to prevent marginalization or exclusion.
There has also been a discussion on how many stakeholder groups we
actually have. Is the distinction between governments, private sector,
civil society and international organizations as observers sufficient?
Or should the technical community be recognized as another group of
actors? And how would such a categorization relate to the issue of
stakeholder balance?
I am in favor of sticking to the lowest number of groups possible
because each further group makes the categories the process of selection
and representation only more arbitrary than it is right now.
An important problem concerns regional representation. The advisory
group has no funding. To participate in the MAG meetings requires
resources that people from poor countries don't have. Even for civil
society members like me it is difficult to organize the funding for the
MAG meetings. So, even if we develop the most balanced mechanisms for
regional, political and sectoral representation, lack of funding might
undermine their effects. How are we dealing with this problem? Are we
going to select only people who have enough funding to travel to Geneva?
(My guess is that in the near future we won't convince governments to
give up face to face meetings. And even if remote participation might be
possible at times, it does put people at a disadvantage.)
Last point. The MAG is still a contested issue. Its no secret that many
governments are longing for a traditional bureau that would be working
according to established intergovernmental processes and principles.
This is why I would be cautious to ask for a reconstitution of the MAG.
Such terminology suggests that we want to see the whole entity be put
under reconsideration. Is this really what we want?
jeanette
Ian Peter wrote:
> Jeremy’s comments on this make a lot of sense (follow the link below to
> see them)
>
>
>
> However I suspect we will find it difficult to change the method of SG
> selecting members and creating a balance among the various groups. That
> means, as happened last time, we can only recommend names and expect
> some of them will be rejected.
>
>
>
> In this context, I would recommend our position be that the MAG should
> serve two year terms and then be totally reconstituted – but with a
> recommendation to SG that up to a maximum of 50% be reappointed to
> provide continuity.
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* 07 January 2008 00:08
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] Reconstituting MAG
>
>
>
> This is to trigger a discussion, and possibly evolve a consensus
> statement, on the issue of reconstituting the MAG – or in the official
> language ‘suitable rotation among its members, based on recommendations
> from the various interested groups’. A discussion thread has been opened
> on this issue on the IGF website at http://intgovforum.org/forum/ .
> Strangely, there is no clear call for sending comments to the IGF
> secretariat as is the norm. But I think they would in any case take in
> comments as they have done for all MAG meetings, and publish them in the
> comments page.
>
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1210 - Release Date:
> 05/01/2008 11:46
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1211 - Release Date:
> 06/01/2008 11:57
>
____________________________________________________________
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: 269.17.13/1213 - Release Date: 07/01/2008
09:14
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.17.13/1214 - Release Date: 08/01/2008
13:38
____________________________________________________________
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