[governance] role of IGF Chair's Special Advisors

[Adam Peake]

Carlos, Hi.

I think it's reasonable that the chair decides 
who to appoint as his advisors, they are his 
advisors after all (and the secretary general, 
apparently, appoints the MAG, his advisors.)  But 
if they are to have the same "powers" as the MAG 
members (except voting -- but does the MAG vote?) 
that doesn't mean we should not provide advice 
about issues such as gender, regional, 
stakeholder and balance, total number and even 
role.

Example of why I think this worth raising again 
is gender.  The consultations early last year 
about the MAG suggested, among other things that 
it need to improve gender balance. The MAG 
included this as part of the principles for 
rotation it sent to the secretary general. And I 
think the new membership last year tried to take 
that advice into account.  But at the same time I 
think the number of male chair's advisors 
increased (currently 6:2) I suggest the chair 
should follow the same principles as the MAG, and 
take the composition of the MAG into 
consideration when appointing advisors.

As the MAG is now being renewed it might be a 
good time to make this point to the chair?  Then 
if as you say he's going to revamp his advisors 
he can do so while considering issues such as 
gender, regional balance etc.

I wasn't particularly seeing any problem that 
made me make the comment, just read something 
that reminded me of the caucus' comments last 
year (and it would probably have been better if 
I'd remembered a couple of months ago when we 
were discussing the MAG.) Anyway, I remember it 
wasn't just the caucus that thought the chair's 
advisors an issue, but once the MAG rotation 
process got underway it seemed to be forgotten 
about.  No need for you to ask for clarification, 
either this is something the caucus would like to 
comment on, or not.

Thanks,

Adam



>Dear Adam, this is no different from the past, of course, when other
>people were special advisors. But since the choice of special advisors
>is the chair's and not subject to recommendation lists, there remains to
>discuss only what level or type of participation they should have in the
>formal MAG processes.
>
>The chair probably is going to revamp the special advisors list as soon
>as the list of new members is announced (but both the SAs' and members'
>lists are, again, executive decisions, either by the chair or the
>secretariat general, we constituencies can only recommend names for
>members and I do not think it makes sense recommending names for SAs).
>The very need for SAs (or lack of them) is an executive decision.
>
>Usually the online forum (mailing list) is free for anyone including SAs
>to opinate (and I think it should be). As to the MAG meetings, I
>understand the practice is SAs cannot vote when a vote is needed, and
>can ask for / provide clarifications and so on.
>
>What is the problem or issue you have detected which merits going into
>this, except for the comment you mention? I am far more worried about
>the new members' list, wondering if people who have been chosen less
>than a year ago will remain, how the 1/3 criteria will be applied (if
>so) etc.
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>>  February last year we sent a comment for a consultation on the renewal
>>  and restructuring of the MAG <http://www.igcaucus.org/node/9> asking for
>>  clarification about the role of Chair's Special Advisors and criteria
>>  for their selection.
>>
>>  Seems strange to have criteria and process for MAG members, and then a
>>  group of people who act as equal to any other MAG member, but without
>>  any concern for their selection, diversity, representation, even number.
>>
>>  As there's a MAG renewal process going on now, suggest we ask that
>>  answers about the role etc of advisors be given when the new MAG is
>>  announced.
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>  ____________________________________________________________
>>  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
>>
>>
>
>--
>
>------------------------------------------------
>Carlos A. Afonso
>Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
>www.rits.org.br                  www.rets.org.br
>www.nupef.org.br             www.politics.org.br
>www.ritsnet.org.br
>------------------------------------------------
>
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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