[governance] Our IGF survey results

Wed Jan 13 12:36:48 EST 2010

I am back online at last.  I apologise for my inconvenient absence, which has made it harder for us to meet the 15 January deadline for written contributions on the next phase for the IGF that will be reflected in the synthesis paper for the February consultations.  However, here I am posting the results of the online survey.  In the next email, I will post a draft statement based on these results.

There were 36 responses to the survey; 26 full, and 10 partial (since no questions were compulsory).  This amounts to about a quarter of our membership, which isn't bad at all in my opinion.  I didn't activate the strictest level of checking for duplicate entries, because this was not a formal poll.  However, there are no obvious signs of survey stacking.

Anyway, without further ado, here is a summary of the responses:

1. Is the Secretariat provided by the United Nations? - All but three respondents who answered the question said YES.  This seems like a rough consensus.

2. To whom is the Secretariat directly accountable? - We had a roughly even split between those who thought it should be accountable to the UN Secretary General, as present, and those who thought that it should be accountable to the MAG.  Thus, there is no consensus on this point, but there is what I would call a "significant" minority view in favour of change, which might be worthy of note.

3. How is the MAG (by whatever name) selected? - A large majority of respondents felt that the stakeholders, either directly or through a nominating committee, should select MAG members.  However, six respondents felt that, as now, the Secretariat should do so (the "black box" approach).

4. How is the MAG composed? - All but two respondents who answered this question felt that there should be either full equality, or greater equality than at present, in the number of stakeholder group representatives on the MAG.  This seems like a pretty strong "rough consensus" for change.

5. Whom do the MAG members represent? - The majority felt that they should represent their stakeholder groups - more than three times as many as those who thought that they should represent themselves.  So this is a fairly strong result, though falling short of consensus.

6. By whom should the MAG be chaired? - About twice as many thought it should appoint its own chair/s, as those who thought the Secretariat should appoint the chair.  However, since there were a good number holding each point of view, it does not seem we are likely to develop a consensus on this point.

7. How should the MAG make decisions? - Again, we do not have a strong agreement here.  As many thought that voting should be used as thought that there should be a consensus between individuals.  Slightly more popular (by five) was the view that the consensus should be between stakeholder groups rather than between individuals.

8. What should be the transparency of MAG deliberations? - A majority of those who responded sought an improvement in the level of transparency, to include at least a public mailing list, and anonymised transcripts of discussions (and within this group, a majority would have gone further and required recordings or full transcripts). So whilst there is not a consensus on this, it is a significant view perhaps worth recording.

9. Who is responsible for determining the IGF's structure and processes? - Five thought that the Secretariat  (or "the UN" in one case) should do so.  Everyone else who answered thought this was a task for the MAG or the open consultation meetings.  I feel that perhaps we can write some wording reflecting this that would meet with rough consensus.

10. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) briefing documents? - No clear agreement here.  As many thought that the Secretariat should do so as those who thought it should be a more democratic procedure.

11. Who is responsible for writing (beyond just compiling) written outputs? - A very similar result was obtained as to the preceding question.  In other words, there is no likely consensus here.

12. How can such outputs be expressed in a case where a consensus exists? - A sizable majority of those who responded, though not to the rough consensus level, thought that recommendations, declarations or statements would be appropriate.  Seven thought that we should just have a Chairman's summary or similar.  I will draft some wording to fairly reflect this result.

13. How is intersessional preparatory work of the IGF to be performed? - Most thought the IGF should have online tools and intersessional meetings to enable an ongoing work program to be undertaken.  A lesser number (six) thought it was sufficient to rely on the dynamic coalitions (and perhaps other working groups that might be created for this purpose).  However only one said there was no need for any intersessional work.  So we clearly have a rough consensus on that already.

14. How are outputs of the dynamic coalitions or working groups transmitted to the IGF after consensus is reached on them internally? - A similar result, with only one respondent dissenting from the view that the dynamic coalitions or working groups should put their output before the IGF at large.  More people thought that this should be done via the MAG than those who thought it should be done directly to the IGF in plenary session.

15. What criteria apply to the recognition of these groups? - Everyone who responded thought that their membership should be open and their processes democratic.  Most thought their composition should also be multi-stakeholder, and hardly anyone thought there should be a limit of one group per issue area.  This represents an existing rough consensus on the first two points.

16. Who is responsible for assessing the consensus of the IGF at large? - No strong agreement here, though the most popular answer was that the MAG should do so. 

17. What working processes are used to promote such consensus? - About three-quarters of those who responded thought that either small group moderated democratic deliberation, or something like roundtables, should be used.  However we do not have strong agreement about the assessment of the consensus of the IGF, so I am not going to use this result in our statement.

18. How are outputs of the IGF transmitted to external institutions? - Again, about three quarters of those who responded said that its outputs should be transmitted via the MAG and/or the media, with other answers including "Secretariat publications", "summary statements", and "the Web site".

19. How is the agenda for the IGF set? - Only one said that the Secretariat should do so, and one said the MAG acting alone should.  Everyone else who responded felt that the stakeholders, either directly or through the filter of the MAG, should set the IGF's agenda.  This is a rough consensus answer.

20. How are workshops selected? - An equal number thought that the topics should be pre-selected during the agenda-setting phase, as those who thought that workshop proposals should be invited, either with or without duplicates being eliminated by the MAG.  Thus there is no easy room for consensus here.

So, I'm pleased that the survey suggests that there is quite a broad agreement already on some basic reforms for the IGF.  In case anyone would like to audit the results, I can give you an administrative login to the survey site so that you can review them in detail (including nice graphs and raw files you can download into a statistical program).

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

CI is 50
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. 
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100113/78a01b2e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t