[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

Wed Mar 12 12:30:47 EDT 2008

I think we should follow some basic guidelines:

1. Rotation would be for 1/3 of the MAG (I guess this means the whole 
MAG and not only the 50% non-gov people).

2. All members are nominated by the SG for one year, so they are now all 
non-members formally; it means that the SG will choose new names from 
suggested lists presented by stakeholder groups and governments for 1/3, 
and will choose from the current list of MAG members the other 2/3.

3. As usual, stakeholder groups should go through an open process of 
getting candidates and recommending members. We should, I think, avoid 
as much as possible self-nominations (although we should consider the 
explicit wish of our current reps to continue, if they so express this, 
but reminding ourselves of the current inbalances in representation).

4. Nominations for CS reps should come from the different regions, and 
indicated by cauci (or equivalent groups, if any) from these regions. 
For example, for LA&C we are trying to arrive at names through our 
alc-cmsi caucus list.

5. Gender, regional, and other balances should be considered as much as 
possible in our final list.

6. Last but not least, capacity to participate (both in online and face 
to face meetings) is essential -- this means financial support available 
to travel, time to get involved in the list discussions and so on.

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

Adam Peake wrote:
> 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
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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