[governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire
Sivasubramanian M
isolatedn at gmail.com
Tue Oct 5 13:42:19 EDT 2010
There was a wave of acclamation when Nomcom 2010 announced its results which
was a clear acknowledgement of your good work. My quote was non-specific.
And, I don't think that Milton used the word 'perpetuate' in such a specific
sense. Powerful interests in any political setting have subtle ways of
retaining their position (number of apparent seats, a few invisible seats
(their men in the seats of the opposite quadrant - for instance a consumer
seat filled by an someone with an industry leaning) etc. Such politics
perpetuate their overall strength in Governance.
Sivasubramanian M
2010/10/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> This is not true with ICANNs NomCom 2010 which I chaired. We nominated
> three new faces and did no re-nominate the three sitting directors.
>
> w
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Sivasubramanian M [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Di 05.10.2010 19:27
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Cc: Milton L Mueller; Jeremy Malcolm
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Draft response to MAG questionnaire
>
>
> There was an argument against the idea of an independant nomcom, by Milton,
> June 12 who said "Nominating committees are just ways for insider groups to
> perpetuate themselves. We all know this from the ICANN process"
>
>
> Though this comment is harsh, there indeed is some truth in the statement,
> at least, as a reflection of the political possibility of insider groups
> perpetuating themselves by filling up nomcom seats, working their way around
> within the nomcom.
>
>
> If this caution is built into the nomcom design, and checks and balances
> could be built in, then an ICANN-like nomcom for MAG is a good idea.
>
> Sivasubramanian M
>
>
>
>
> 2010/10/5 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
>
>
> I also agree broadly with Jeremies orginal text and Miltons
> comments.
>
> Two additional ideas: Shouldn´t we say something on "output"? And
> what about an independent "NomCom" to select MAG members?
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Fra: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sendt: ma 04-10-2010 23:41
> Til: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
> Emne: 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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101005/75b65465/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
More information about the Governance
mailing list