[governance] SECOND DRAFT response to MAG questionnaire

[parminder]

Jeremy thanks for this

    *******"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.*******"


I am still opposed to mentioning the principle of subsidiarity, even if 
you have removed 'national' and only retained 'regional'.

This principle would mean nothing should be taken up and done by the IGF 
which can 'effectively' (and the judgment of effectiveness will remain 
open) be done by a regional IGF. One may say that since human rights 
concern real human situation, and someone may add cultural contexts as 
an issue to this, they are best taken up by national and regional IGF 
and the global IGF only deals with issues which specifically concern the 
whole world at once.

In any case, as you may know, many regional/ national IGFs are held by 
bodies and group of actors who are self-appointed to do so.... Asian IGF 
was held by a small group of Hong Kong based actors/ groups who 
self-selected themselves to do so (which, as validly IT for Change and 
some other Bangalore based organizations could possible have done, if, 
alas, we had the money) , and even the US IGF I understand is held 
largely by some industry groups. Do you want to dissipate the legitimacy 
of the global IGF through yielding it to these efforts, which often have 
questionable legitimacies?


On the question ****6. How best to link with international processes and 
institutions?****

I think we need to propose ways beyond ensuring circulation of 
information. We should ask for real policy related engagements, whereby 
the IGF is able to give recs to these institutions in their area of 
policy making competence, and these other institutions are encouraged to 
bring policy issues on which they will like to have a larger debate/ 
dialogue to the IGF, and the IGF then reverts back on outcomes of the 
discussion/ dialogue. I also read some such intention in the Tunis 
Agenda para on IGF mandate.

Parminder



On Wednesday 06 October 2010 09:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> 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 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. 
> Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101006/e1b4a347/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