[governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire

Fri Oct 8 00:15:47 EDT 2010

Hello Jeremy,

Thank you for this new update. I agree with all corrections made.

best,

~Pascal

2010/10/8, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>:
> (If you have a graphical mail client, you'll see the changes underlined or
> struck through.  These will also be visible in the Web archive copy.)
>
> 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.
>
> Finally we ask that when the MAG prepares the IGF's agenda, it should
> prioritise issues which directly concern the interests of marginalized
> groups, as they and those working with them (rather than just technical
> experts) see these issues.  This in turn requires that these marginalised
> groups should be better represented on the MAG.
>
> 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, subject to appropriate criteria to ensure regional and
> gender balance and a diversity of viewpoints.
>
> Although civil society broadly agrees on this general principle, various
> different models for implementing are being debated.  These include the
> reestablishment of a civil society umbrella group such as the WSIS civil
> society plenary, the use of an independent nominating committee, or the
> assignment of a role to the Internet Governance Caucus itself, whose
> existing open, accountable, transparent and democratic processes provide a
> good model for a broader nominating group.
>
> [DELETED/REWORKED: WIth its existing open, accountable, transparent and
> democratic processes, the Internet Governanc 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.
>
> [DELETED: 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.
>
> A emerging model for this process (though other possible models may also be
> explored) is found in the "messages" or "recommendations" produced by
> national IGFs such IGF-D (Deutschland), and regional IGFs such as the East
> African IGF and EURODIG.  Ideally this would become a two-way process in
> which the institutions addressed could also turn to the IGF with issues they
> wished the IGF to address through multi-stakeholder dialogue.
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
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