[governance] the matter of MAG rotation 2010

[William Drake]

Hi Parminder

On Jan 18, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Parminder wrote:

> Hi Bill
> 
> William Drake wrote:
>> Hi Jeremy,
>> 
>> On Jan 18, 2010, at 9:39 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> 
>>> Even while there has been a MAG meeting three times a year, important decisions have still been made without reference to it.  I worry that, as little authority as the MAG has been allowed as it is, the Secretariat is at least likely to let it out on a longer leash than the open consultation meeting.  In my personal (non-coordinator) view, management of the IGF is a case where some (accountable, transparent) hierarchical structure is needed.
>> 
>> Could you help me to understand your concerns here?  Which important decisions exactly have been made without reference to the MAG? 
> 
> While Jeremy has spoken of important decisions having been taken without reference to the MAG, I must reaffirm that my principal issue is with erosion of decision making capacity of the IGF resulting in overall less decision-making and therefore lesser possibilities of doing many things that we expect IGF/ MAG to do.

Right, I understand you'd like IGF to be more of a decision making body.  But that's not the same thing as saying that the MAG has in the past been bypassed with respect to those functions that are under its purview, within the overall framework, as Jeanette points out, of the UNSG's authority.   Again, I have not seen any significant evidence that it's been unduly marginalized to date (a poorly handled Taking Stock session and one decision about an online platform notwithstanding), or evidence that this has been of broad concern to CS.  I could see an argument that MAG needs to improve its working methods, be more transparent, and reach earlier and better decisions about the program (my notion of what that'd mean admittedly may be idiosyncratic...we all have our preferences), but that's not a strength issue.  
> 
>>  I'm open to persuasion that I'm missing something, but at present most of the aspects of IGF I wish were different are not the result of the MAG having too little influence, needing a longer leash, etc.
> What aspects are these, that you wish were different? i ask because, I think, from what I have heard from you and also from IGC statements - things like working groups, background papers, inter-sessional work, better structuring and perhaps outputs  - all or most such aspects depends on adequate decision making capacity of the MAG, isnt it. Or how else do you think these aspects/ functions can even be started to be addressed?

Well, like others I'm sure, my thinking has evolved in light of experience.  At the UNICT forum on IG in NYC March 04 I gave a talk, and then wrote a chapter in Don MacLean's book, that inter alia suggested the need for a new multistakeholder arrangement with a holistic, cross-cutting mandate and (let me open and dust off the file) that 'a potentially attractive model to build off of might be the OECD, or rather its Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy.  Relevant elements of this model include: a small and expert research staff that produces highly regarded reports on Internet and related issues; ongoing dialogue and regularly scheduled meetings, rather than occasional one-off events with variable attendance; a single, convenient location for meetings, rather than world roaming assemblages; a broad mandate, continually reviewed and agreed; and normally, a reliance on “soft law” instruments such as declarations, recommendations, and guidelines.'  However, I noted that politically this wouldn't fly given the diversity of interests among relevant power centers, so as a fall back suggested creation of 'a multistakeholder mechanism restricted to the monitoring, analytical, and information-sharing functions.  By tracking developments across the Internet governance terrain, drawing attention to gaps and generalizable lessons, and providing the sort of multi-perspective assessment that is often lacking in more narrowly mandated arrangements, such a mechanism could enrich the dialogue and provide helpful inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making.  It would be especially useful to non-dominant stakeholders like developing countries, CSOs, and SMEs that already have difficulties monitoring and assessing governance processes, but other stakeholders could find it to be value-adding as well.  A small, nimble, and well-connected secretariat supported by virtual networks of organizations and individuals could perform these tasks effectively.'  

Whatever, neither path was followed and and they aren't going to be, and subsequent experience has led me to doubt whether the 'soft law' approach would be advisable, particularly given the highly regulatory orientations governments around the world are pursuing.  I still think the cross-cutting monitoring, analytical, and information-sharing functions (especially with respect to transparency, inclusion, development, my usuals) and inputs into other processes tasked with actual decision making would be useful additions.  Both activities could still be pursued by participants in the IGF (as opposed to the IGF per se).  Alas, the former would require resources and capacities which are not available, so the best one can hope for is some piecemeal initiatives, e.g. the APC/COE/UNECE effort, a development agenda collaboration, etc.  The latter is partially addressed in other ways, e.g. CS and other non-state participation in ICANN, OECD, etc. (BTW, ICANN's public comment period on the AoC closes 31 January)

In sum, I don't see a rationale for a stronger MAG within the current framework of an annual space for debate, what of real world consequence this would improve.  But sure, if the whole set-up and mission were different, of course one would want a solid (which might not mean 'stronger') multistakeholder body working closely with the secretariat.

Best,

Bill




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100118/f558f9ea/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