[governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future/ Affirmation of Status Quo

Tue May 4 21:57:36 EDT 2010

I concur in uneasiness over the portrayal of the UN position and authority.

I do not believe there should be any increase in authority of the MAG

I am confident and satisfied with the current method and result of choosing MAG membership.

I believe that worthwhile ideas from all sectors are proposed and discussed here and that the MAG is responsive in bringing them to the table.

At this time Internet Governance would not be qualitatively benefited by a more democratically representative body through the MAG.

(however if the stipend and legacy is large enough I will consider being anointed king)

--- On Wed, 5/5/10, Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Pascal Bekono <pbekono at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Suggested statement on MAG's future
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette at wzb.eu>
Date: Wednesday, May 5, 2010, 12:32 AM

Hi All, 

Thanks Jeremy and Ginger for this interesting draft !

I fully agree with Jeannette's remarks. 

Best, 

~Pascal 

2010/5/4 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

Hi Jeremy,

thank you for the draft statement.

I have issues with the following sentences: 

Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only.  Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.

What does that mean, it is a formal appointment only. Have you, for example, asked the secretariat if they also regard this appointment as merely formal? I think you would be surprised. Also, I don't understand the meaning of "rightful" in this context. Is it supposed to mean what you or we find just or adequate? Then this should be made more clear.

Many of these issues we have discussed before and I can only repeat my positions:

I don't think it is feasible and desirable for the stakeholders to choose their members for the MAG. We need somebody sorting out issues of regional and gender representation. Expertise is also an issue in this context.

I am also not convinced that the MAG should get more authority. This would raise problems of legitimacy and most likely bring the equality between governments and other stakeholders in the MAG and the IGF in general to an end.

Finally, the issue of transparency: The secretariat publishes a summary of the MAG's discussions as a response to the request for more transparency. If the caucus thinks this is not enough or doesn't do what we need, perhaps we should be more specific than just repeating what we have said for years?

jeanette

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:

Ginger and I have been silent on the drafting of a statement on the future of the MAG for its meeting on the 12th, in the hope that such a statement would emerge from the bottom up, but in order not to let the opportunity slip, allow me now to propose some text for discussion.  There are six paragraphs.  If you have an issue, please state which paragraph is of concern, and please make your suggestions as focussed as possible.

--- begins ---

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the maintenance of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), as the body that links the UN Secretariat to the stakeholder groups that are the joint sovereigns of Internet governance.  We would like to see the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of the MAG strengthened as it continues into a renewed term for the IGF.

To this end, in our statement for the February open consultation and MAG meetings, the IGC suggested that the composition of the MAG itself should be more evenly divided between the stakeholder groups.  We also reported that many believe that the stakeholders should have a more direct role in the selection of MAG members, and that MAG discussions should continue to be made more transparent.

We also consider that care must be taken in balancing the respective roles of the Secretariat and the MAG.  Whilst the United Nations Secretary-General is the titular leader of the IGF process, this is a formal appointment only.  Rightful control of the IGF as a process or institution of Internet governance belongs ultimately to the stakeholders themselves.  Therefore, the Secretariat's role ought to remain a purely facilitative and technical one.

In underlining this, the appropriate role of the MAG, as the only representative body of the stakeholders within the IGF process, becomes clear.  Namely, it should be responsible for every decision that effects the substantive work of the IGF.  This includes agenda setting, overseeing the preparation of briefing and synthesis documents, and reshaping the IGF's structure and working methods (such as the establishment of thematic working groups).

In the future, its role may go further still.  Until now, the IGF has been largely just a forum for discussion.  Looking to the future, the Secretary-General's report on the continuation of the IGF envisages that it may come to produce some form of recommendations.  If so, the MAG will have a role in supporting that process too, likely in shaping the content of any statements that are to be issued in conformity with the consensus of the plenary forum.

Whatever the future may hold for the IGF, the MAG will be integral to it.  This is why it is so important that the composition of the MAG is balanced, that the process of selection of its members satisfies the stakeholder groups from which they are drawn, that its operations are conducted with a high degree of transparency in order to ensure its accountability to the stakeholders at large, and that its legitimate role is not usurped.

--- ends ---

Perhaps time is too short for us to agree on this statement (extending the delay, I'm writing while away without Internet access), but let's try and see how far we get.

-- 

*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 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.

____________________________________________________________
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

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100504/56a6d067/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