[governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire

Fri Oct 8 08:54:58 EDT 2010

Thank you Jeremy for your continued hard work.

I share a similar concern on the role of IGC with the whole CS group.

I was one of the NomCom members to suggest candidates for WGIG,
(long time ago), and that time there was Civil Society Bureau, with many
other caucuses and groups on different themes. We sent a call for
nomination to all of them and received good responses, but there still
was some concerns or criticism as to why IGC takes such a role.
That time any other group could also send nominations thus we were
not the only channel on behalf of CS.

Similarly, I think it is safer to say something like "IGC is ready to work
together with other CS groups to send nominations".  or IGC is ready
to coordinate nominations for the Civil society, but we are also open
to other ways to work together" etc.

I do not insist on specific wording, but appreciate if you could consider
these ideas.

izumi

2010/10/8 David Souter <david.souter at runbox.com>:
> 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
>
> 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
>

-- 
                        >> Izumi Aizu <<

          Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo

           Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
                                  Japan
                                 * * * * *
           << Writing the Future of the History >>
                                www.anr.org
____________________________________________________________
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