[governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire

[Jeremy Malcolm]

I apologise for my delay in getting this together.  This is a draft statement in response to the MAG's questionnaire (at http://intgovforum.org/cms/the-preparatory-process/510) on improvements to the MAG and other IGF preparatory processes.  This statement is based, where possible, on the responses to the individual questions that were discussed on this list between 8 June and 2 July.  You will notice a few quotes taken near-verbatim from posts to the list.

However, discussion tailed off after the first few questions, so a lot of what appears below is my "feeling" of an IGC response that could meet with a rough consensus, based on observation of the list over the last year (and, inevitably, personal perspectives).  Consider this as a renewed invitation to comment now.  Because of the limited actual input into some of the questions so far, I've kept those answers fairly brief.

Please provide your detailed comments for changes and improvements.  We have until 24 October to finalise this.

1. Has the work of the MAG been consistent with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda and subsequent decisions?

The IGC broadly supports the continuation of the MAG in its present form, as a multi-stakeholder programme committee for the IGF. In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well.  However, the IGF now stands at a cross-roads where it may be called upon to produce more tangible outputs.  The qualification of the MAG to steer the IGF through this challenging phase of its evolution is less clear.

In the past, the MAG has been unwilling to depart too radically from the format of the IGF that  was established in Athens.  Ideas such as speed dialogues, debates, roundtables and messages from the IGF, although strongly supported in some quarters, have each year failed to progress within the MAG due to a lack of consensus, which has been interpreted as requiring unanimity.

Whilst the desire not to mess with a process that is working is laudable, a lack of consensus cannot be used to justify inertia, where the IGF's mandate calls for action.  To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era for the IGF may require more proactive leadership, utilising a more flexible conception of "rough consensus" to break through stalemates and propel the IGF towards the complete fulfilment of its mandate.  Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness.

Moreover, the MAG does not always interact well with the public forum of its own design - the IGF.  MAG members should be encouraged to put ideas out for multistakeholder comment and participation, in a variety of other institutions, processes and fora, both online and offline.  Opening up meetings of the MAG to observers, either face to face or remotely, could also assist in making it more accessible and responsive to the broader community.

2. How best to nominate non governmental members for the MAG?

As the MAG takes on more responsibility, it will also be necessary for it to become more accountable.  Part of this process may involve moving on from the existing "black box" approach whereby the United Nations Secretary General selects MAG members from a range of nominees put forward by various parties, pursuant to selection criteria that are not published.

An alternative approach that many from civil society support is the selection of MAG representatives through a bottom-up process driven by the stakeholder groups.  WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes, the Internet Governance Caucus could form the foundation of an appropriate body to select civil society MAG representatives, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints.

Another reform that might be considered is to rescind the special privileges that representatives of intergovernmental organisations, and special advisors to the chair, currently possess.  If the MAG's processes are opened to broader oversight by the community, such special privileges would soon become redundant.

3. How best to nominate the MAG Chair?

At present, a single UN-based Chair is appointed by the UN Secretary-General.  This may no longer be appropriate if the MAG develops into a body whose members are self-selected by the stakeholders.  In that case, it could be that the MAG should select its own chair or chairs, and for that position to rotate between the stakeholder groups.

In any case, this must not change the fundamental nature of the role of the Chair, which is not to push a personal or stakeholder agenda, but to facilitate the MAG's effective operation as a de facto multi-stakeholder bureau for the IGF that is responsible for facilitating the fulfilment of the mandate in the Tunis Agenda.

4. How best to organize open consultations?

There is merit in regarding the open consultation meetings not as meetings held in Geneva, with provision for remote participation from around the world, but as meetings that are held online, with provision for some participants to attend in person at a hub in Geneva, or at other hubs.  Indeed, the IGF meetings themselves could come to be considered in the same terms.

Online meetings are most effective when provision is made for participation both synchronously (ie. in real time) and asynchronously (ie. through comments and discussions that are contributed over an extended period through blogs, Twitter, mailing lists, Facebook and so on).

It is somewhat anachronistic that the IGF at large does not utilise an electronic mailing list for discussions, and that other means of asynchronous participation are not widely promoted for use by IGF participants as means of contributing to open consultations.  In particular, MAG members do not tend to contribute in that capacity to online discussions outside of their closed mailing list, which limits the profile and accessibility of the MAG and the IGF as a whole.

5. How best to link with regional meetings?

The regional IGF meetings have the potential to bring the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance to a much broader community of Internet users and citizens, but at the same time we must be careful to ensure that these meetings meet the same basic process criteria as the IGF itself, including adequate participation by civil society at all levels.

In this context, civil society has less capacity to contribute to governance processes than governmental and private sector groups, due to funding constraints and its reliance on voluntary labour.  This may require that additional efforts be made (and funded where appropriate) to ensure that a plurality of civil society voices are heard in Internet governance processes.

We also suggest that consideration be given to the principle of subsidiarity as a guideline for the IGF's relationship with regional and national IGFs.  That is to say that country IGFs should be encouraged to take up issues at a national level, a regional IGF will subsume all national concerns in order to build a regional position, and global issues will be predominantly the concern of the global IGF.

With such organizational arrangements as proposed above, national reports would feed into the regional IGFs, and regional reports to the global IGF.

6. How best to link with international processes and institutions?

Just as at the Vilnius IGF meeting online moderators helped to bridge between online and offline discussions, so too there could be rapporteurs whose job it would be to summarise relevant discussions at the IGF and to forward them to external institutions, and to act as a conduit for feedback from those institutions.

Ideally these summaries would include both main sessions and workshops, since much of the valuable discussion at the IGF takes place in the latter.  Alternatively, they could be limited to the main sessions provided that a better mechanism for feeding the output of workshops back into main sessions is realised.

-- 
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/20101004/98bef414/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101004/98bef414/attachment.bin>