[governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire

Tue Oct 5 04:02:12 EDT 2010

Thank you so much Jeremy for drafting this statement.
Since people are already under shock following Lee's reply, let me  
add to the trauma: I also agree with Milton's modifications.
Best,
Meryem

Le 5 oct. 10 à 02:13, Lee W McKnight a écrit :

> I Know this will shock some - but I agree with Milton : )
>
> And nice job Jeremy.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Subject: RE: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire
>
> Jeremy
> Thanks for getting this started and for your work on it. Comments  
> below:
>
> 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
>
> I don’t think we do. Would propose modification of this language to:
>
> The IGC broadly supports the continued existence of a balanced  
> multistakeholder advisory group.
>
> In this limited role, the MAG has performed fairly well.
>
> <cough>
> How about: “In its current role, the MAG has not been an  
> unmitigated disaster.”
> OK, if that’s too harsh, please substitute “reasonably” for “fairly  
> well.”
> Also, don’t forget that it’s ok for an IGC statement to reflect  
> differing views. So if there is a significant chunk of us who  
> believe the MAG has been fantastic, then describe the spectrum.
>
> 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.
>
> OK. Two sentences above have my complete support
>
> 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.
>
> I would delete all the words above, and move directly to the next  
> paragraph, which I have modified:
>
> To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, [delete:  
> for] the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its  
> constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and  
> proactive leadership. [delete: 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.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by this statement – it might require  
> elaboration
>
> 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.
>
> OK
>
> 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.
>
> Hooray!
>
> 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.
>
> Hooray!
>
> 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.
>
> Hooray!
>
> 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.
>
> 2 paragraphs above ok with me
>
> 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.
>
> Fully endorse this entire section.
>
> 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.
>
> I have problems with any suggestions that institutionalize national  
> as opposed to transnational regulatory approaches. National  
> governments are doing just fine, thank you very much; what we are  
> doing here is an attempt to institutionalize non-national or  
> transnational approaches. Why put so much emphasis on national?  
> Just refer to “local” or “regional” IGFs.
>
> 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.
>
> #6 is ok with me, too.
>
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> XS4ALL Professor, Technology University of Delft
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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

____________________________________________________________
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