[governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening

[Milton L Mueller]

I agree with your concerns, Parminder. What they appear to be setting up is the kind of self-selecting network of insiders that characterizes many internet technical community institutions, such as ICANN’s Nominating Committee. In this kind of a system, existing representatives play a big role in vetting and selecting proposed incoming representatives. This happens in secret, in a completely nontransparent way. It is a small step away from the “black box,” because there is some diversity among the existing CS/MAG representatives and some (very weak) lines of accountability to civil society, but the overall effect of such a selection system can only be to minimize change in the composition of the MAG. The main purpose is to preserve the continuity and control of the people who are already in control. Whoever is selected must be “acceptable” to the group as a whole. People who are outspoken or controversial are automatically eliminated by such a system.

As for geographic and gender diversity, I would assert that diversity of viewpoints and ideas is more important than any other form of diversity, and that geography and gender are at best proxies for differing viewpoints and ideologies.



From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 12:40 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] MAG meeting - proposal for a non gov screening body for non gov MAG members



The second important element to report from the MAG meeting  has to do with the process of selection of MAG members.

It was agreed early in the meeting that governments have their established ways to select members to UN kind of bodies, and thus the discussion here is only about selection of non-gov members.

The MAG did discuss the need for more openness, transparency etc. The general discontent with what is called the 'blackbox' approach was discussed. While general observations were made about increasing openness, transparency etc, which are all very welcome, the main 'possible' operational improvement that got discussed, and I understand will be recorded in the outcomes from the MAG meeting that will be conveyed to the UN SG, is as follows:

It relates to a body of non gov stakeholder persons, including ex MAG members (the intention seems to be that it will largely if not exclusively be ex MAG members), who will 'look at' recommendations from various stakeholder groups, and apparently finalize the list, which then (apparently) will be rubber stamped by the concerned UN authority, with a possible last check by the concerned authority.

On the surface it look all very good, but I have a great problem - in fact a non-negotiable one - with CS nominations being checked and decided on by private sector and technical community. We all know what will happen. I kept opposing this proposal as being completely unacceptable to most in civil society. Though I was 'assured' that this will not operate as a possible veto by private sector and technical community on possible CS members, and that the 'finalisation' of the list will 'only' be as per express criteria, chiefly, geographic balance, I am quite sure that this will operate in a manner that will systematically exclude CS nominees that are 'perceived' as 'extreme' (I can give examples of how such systematic exclusions already work in IGF space when such "MS" bodies  make 'persons' related decisions). We have enough people in CS outside IG realm wondering about the degree of co-optation of CS in this area for us to submit to processes that will further round us up nicely into.... well, i wont use the adjectives that come to my mind fearing people may take things personally :)

Most CS members in the MAG list joined me in opposing this proposal. However it is still there as the only new proposal for selecting non-gov MAG members and it worries me a lot. Those supporting the proposal did go to great lengths to try to convince us that it was not at all what we take it to be, but I really could not understand the difference. (Others at the MAG meeting can help me here, if they could make out the difference.) And of course a lot got mentioned about mutual trust among (nongov) multistakeholders etc which seemed to make those of us opposed to the new  proposal look so morally weak and perhaps of a loathsome suspicious nature.

If the new improvement is really in that the stakeholder lists coming bottom-up will not be 'interfered' with except for transparent application of clear criteria - chiefly geographic balance - I would prefer this is done by the secretariat, in active consultation with the concerned stakeholder group, whereby any change necessitated by the application of the 'express criteria' is referred back to the group making the recommendation for making necessary changes, including if necessary new names. I would not want a group dominated by private sector and technical community reps doing this.

We did suggest let a CS rep group do the work of getting the balance right (the term 'triage' was used in the text for this process) and other stakeholders do it respectively for their respective groups, and the response was that three parallel process will simply not be able to do a 'collective' or ' across the groups' balancing, which may be a valid point.

(BTW, while the proposal of this MS group doing the selection or triage is still there, we were able to add something to the effect that they will work 'in active consultation with concerned stakeholder group' to the text. But as mentioned above I do not agree with the proposed MS body doing this activity.)

IGC may want to take a specific position on this issue.

Parminder



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101130/82367f83/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