[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

I am not sure what the process is for the 
rotation.  I thought I knew when I left the MAG 
meeting couple of weeks ago, but reading the 
meeting report I'm now less sure (at least not 
sure enough to recommend starting a process based 
on my understanding.) Please see 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/Feb_igf_meeting/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v2.pdf>, 
paragraphs 3 - 11.

I have asked Markus to explain what he expects to 
happen, if there will be a formal announcement of 
a call for new members, deadline etc. Will let 
you know.

Carlos recently sent a note forwarded from the 
MAG list clarifying the 50/50 division between 
govt and others. Copied below. I have no idea who 
from the non-govt "other" group is planning to 
leave/does not wish to continue.

I do want to continue as a member of the MAG.

The process used in 2006 is described here 
<http://www.nomadicity.net/IGC-candidates-for-IGF-MAG.html>

Adam



At 7:43 PM -0300 3/8/08, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>
>Dear people, in response to my request, in the 
>MAG mail list, for clarification, Markus Kummer 
>provided a thorough review of the issue and 
>authorized me to copy it to the governance list.
>
>Below is Markus' reply to my msg (which is just after Markus's).
>
>fraternal regards
>
>--c.a.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject:	Re: [igf_members] clarification
>Date:	Thu, 6 Mar 2008 14:52:30 +0100
>From:	Markus KUMMER <MKUMMER at unog.ch>
>To:	ca at rits.org.br
>CC:	IGF Members
>
>Dear Carlos,
>
>You are right insofar as there was never any formal decision taken on
>the composition of the MAG by anyone but by the Secretary-General
>himself. As you also, rightly, point out, there is nothing in the Tunis
>Agenda on how the IGF should operate, except some vague references that
>it should build on existing structures, be light-weight and based on
>multistakeholder cooperation.
>
>For this reason we held broad-based consultations on these matters two
>years ago. As was to be expected, different views were held by different
>actors. Brazil, followed by other developing countries, first formulated
>an approach that should be based on WSIS structures, that is on three
>different bureaus - one for governments, one for private sector and one
>for civil society. These three bureaus should meet separately and,
>occasionally, jointly. The governmental bureau would be composed of
>twenty members (four for each region) while the other two bureaus should
>be composed of ten members each. Eventually, this proposal was endorsed
>by the G77. (All regional groups indicated that, based on past
>experience, they needed to be represented by at least four members to
>establish a sub-regional balance.)
>
>WEOG countries, and, as far as I can remember, also private sector,
>spoke in favour of a small programme committee of about 10-15 members. I
>can't remember in detail what civil society proposed, but they were
>mostly in favour of an integrated multistakeholder body.
>
>The Secretary-General found a formula to bridge the different proposals
>- on the one hand, the G77 with regard to the the overall balance and
>all the others with regard to an integrated group. The name chosen for
>the group was also a compromise - neither 'bureau' nor 'programme committee'
>
>This worked remarkably well. As last week's discussions showed, nobody
>is perfectly happy with this formula - some governments find that
>governments are under-represented while non-governmental actors find
>that governments are over-represented. At least it seems that everybody
>is equally unhappy - usually this is a sign of a good compromise.
>
>The original draft of the summary report reflected this delicate
>balance. The Chairman held the view that this formula was not open for
>discussion and finally, at the request of a member of the group, we
>settled for the formulation we have now (which, I admit, may be somewhat
>ambiguous.)
>
>One final remark for your consideration: after Athens, there was a
>general feeling that it was important to increase efforts to engage
>governments more, as governments had been somewhat reluctant to accept
>the informal nature of the interactions with other stakeholders. Any
>change in the composition would not be helpful in this regard.
>
>If you are interested, you can read the history of the discussions we
>had two years ago as it is recorded in real-time transcription on our
>Web site.
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>Best regards
>Markus
>
>
>  >Dear all,
>  >
>  >I tried to track info on a decision which supposedly determined the
>  >50%-50% rule, as stated by the Chair in our last MAG meeting as a
>  >given,
>  >and could not find any formal statement establishing this rule.
>  >Certainly not in the official Tunis documents.
>  >
>  >Could this be clarified by the secretariat?
>  >
>  >fraternal rgds
>  >
>  >--c.a.
>  >






At 1:09 PM +0100 3/12/08, Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>Hi Parminder and all,
>
>Before entering such a huge resources-consuming 
>process, I think it's worth having some 
>discussion inside IGC on whether it is desirable 
>and whether it makes sense to propose IGC 
>nominees, considering the experience with MAG 
>members we have had so far, and discussions we 
>have had at many different occasions on this 
>list, on:
>- the lack of sufficient reports from IGC nominees to this list.
>- the pretty obscure status of "stakeholders' 
>representatives" to the MAG: since they're 
>participating in their individual capacity, they 
>cannot by any mean represent any group.
>- more generally speaking the differences of 
>opinions showed on this list on the role of CS 
>(cf. our latest discussion when trying to 
>prepare an IGC statement to the last IGF 
>consultation meeting in Geneva), on which you've 
>called for clarification so many times yourself, 
>in your capacity of IGC coordinator.
>
>We may think of other options, instead of IGC 
>nominations: e.g. individual support to 
>(self-)nominations by individuals and/or by CS 
>organizations/networks. Thus, the overall 
>process of selecting MAG members (including 
>final selection by the UN Secretary General) 
>would be clearer, more transparent, and 
>hopefully more accountable.
>
>Best,
>Meryem
>
>Le 12 mars 08 à 11:23, Parminder a écrit :
>

(deleted)
____________________________________________________________
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