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

[Jeanette Hofmann]

> 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.

Gender as a proxy. Aren't we surprised.

jeanette
>
> *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
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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