[governance] IGC nominees for MAG

[Adam Peake]

>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).


"Rotating up to 1/3 of the members within each stakeholder group each 
year was seen as the appropriate way forward."  and "50% of its 
members proposed by governments and 50% by other stakeholder groups, 
would be maintained. As governments had their own selection 
mechanisms through their regional groupings, they would be asked to 
forward their proposals to the Secretariat."

Which kind of suggests to me the secretariat (and or SG's office) 
will do some balancing across the "other" 50%, while governments will 
be pretty much left on their own. Govt block has an in built regional 
balance, and have been asked to respect gender diversity, etc.


>2. All members are nominated by the SG for one year, so they are now 
>all non-members formally;


Not my understanding, I am pretty sure members continue as members 
until rotated out. So the MAG continues as is until a new MAG is 
formed. The point about continuity was emphasized so as not to repeat 
the mess of last year when the MAG was stuck in limbo for 6 months.

"It was understood that any decision on how to proceed would be left 
to the Secretary-General and that any list of candidates would 
include the current MAG members who wished to continue. One of the 
criteria passed on to the Secretary-General would be the need for 
continuity and the request that approximately 2/3 of the members of 
the current group be carried over into the new group."



>  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.


Not sure about him choosing from governments (in principle for sure, 
but reality?), but the other's yes.

Agree pretty much with all said below (3, 4, 5 -- for 6 resources to 
attend meeting important, but if meetings are set with enough time 
and people actually know they are members [you can't get a grant for 
a group you don't know you're a member of... think about the May and 
September consultations last year], then funds for developing nation 
members can be available. But having time is important, on top of 
everything else it's four meetings/year.)

If we're looking at a 1/3 rotation, and I think there are currently 7 
CS members of the MAG (people on the MAG list argue that many members 
represent a broad range of interests, but I see 7 when considering 
those who have been involved in CS as it continues on from WSIS) then 
under those guidelines we need to find how many, 1 or 2? But as CS is 
under represented, part of our argument should be just that -- CS has 
been a very significant contributor to WSIS and IGF (note 
participation, more than any other stakeholder and the number of 
workshops organized [lead] etc) and number of members should be 
increased.

Again, I think best to argue why CS should have more members, make 
our case for that, and not argue others should have less.

Best,

Adam




>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.
>>
____________________________________________________________
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