[governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire

[Jean-Louis FULLSACK]

Many thanks to Jeremy for his draft response.

I fully support Milton's views (btw : I do appreciate his sense of humour !) and suggestions.

best regards
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT  




> Message du 04/10/10 23:42
> De : "Milton L Mueller" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "'Jeremy Malcolm'" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : 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.
 

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
 
 

>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101005/fb484390/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