[governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire

Fri Oct 8 08:34:42 EDT 2010

In view of discussion earlier on Q2, it's important that any text submitted
speaks for the IGC and does not presume to speak for civil society in
general.  

This is clear in the response to Q1, but not in that to Q2.  The third para
under Q2 should begin "Although members of the IGC broadly agree", or
"Although the IGC believes that civil society broadly agrees", rather than
its current wording.  

DS

Message sent by:

David Souter

Managing Director, ict Development Associates ltd

Visiting Professor in Communications Management, Business School, University
of Strathclyde

Visiting Senior Fellow, Department of Media and Communications, London
School of Economics and Political Science

Associate of the International Institute for Sustainable Development

145 Lower Camden, Chislehurst, Kent, BR7 5JD

(+44) (0)20 8467 1148 (fixed line)

(+44) (0)7764 819974 (cellular line)

From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] 
Sent: 08 October 2010 02:47
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire

(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: 

W

Ith 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>
http://www.consumersinternational.org/50

Read our
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&
int1stParentNodeID=89765> 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/20101008/abcc6b28/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