[governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Please find below a second draft, incorporating comments to date.  I'm not sure what people would like to see added on "outputs".  I've just added a bit to the last question on 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 a balanced multistakeholder advisory group. In its current role, the MAG has performed reasonably.  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.

We would like the MAG to play an active role in any possible improvements towards a greater outcome orientation that may be suggested by the ongoing IGF improvement process. Since there is no other clear body or structure in and of the IGF, any possible suggestions for improvements like inter-sessional work, choosing of key issues for more focussed work, working groups on issues, background papers etc will require the MAG to play an important part.

To ensure that the MAG remains effective in this new era, the IGF may require more direct lines of accountability to its constituencies, more balanced sectoral representation, and proactive leadership.  Reducing the size of the MAG might also improve its effectiveness.

Moreover, 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.  This could be done through an independent nominating committee, though there is some division within civil society on that question.

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 IGFs.  That is to say that 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.

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/20101006/26db509e/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/20101006/26db509e/attachment.bin>