[governance] THIRD draft response to MAG questionnaire

Fri Oct 8 10:41:35 EDT 2010

Congratulations to all. The text looks very good.

I would like to make just two quick comments.

Regarding question 5 (how to best link the IGF with regional meetings) I
believe that it is important that regional meetings play a more important
role in IGF agenda-setting and issue-framing. The discussions that take
place during the meetings, if summarized more objectively and timely, could
represent real regional contributions to the process.

This does not happen today, as the results of the regional meetings are
mostly publicized during the IGF in a reporting back session.

The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify and
sharpen the discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete
issues (problems to be addressed at/by the IGF). This would be important if
the IGF will be supposed to produce more concrete outcomes.

Regarding question 6, I totally agree with the suggestion and I believe it
is of great importance. I just think that it should be clear that the
rapporteurs should also be proactive to bring into the IGF issues that are
being discussed originally in other forums, if they relate to the Internet
(and not only the feedbacks from these other forums about the discussions
taking place in the IGF). These repporteurs should be the ones “operating
the radar” and bringing issues into the attention of the IG community.

Last but not least, I particularly agree with the role that remote
participation can have in open consultations and MAG meetings and
proceedings. And it should indeed be a continuous process, throughout the
year.

Best wishes,

Marília

On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote:

> (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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>.
> 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
>

-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101008/04abb956/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