[governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire

Tue Oct 12 12:49:12 EDT 2010

I understand Parminder´s concern and agree with him on setting some general
standards that would make a regional meeting representative enough to send
contributions to the IGF.  I agree with Jeremy´s suggestion. It helps to
clarify our proposal and sets widely recognized and accepted standards.

I just wanted to point out that, in my view, we have a vicious cycle taking
place nowadays and we need to brake it. On the one hand, there is lack of
participation in regional meetings *exactly because* people do not see
concrete impact of their outcomes in the global IG process. They are
disconnected from the IGF. On the other hand, people in the IG community
refrain from giving these meetings more space and influence because they
lack participation… One possible way out of this situation, in my opinion,
is to value these meetings and to make their outcomes more meaningful (if
they take into account basic standards of openness and participation). This
would create incentives to more involvement.

Best,

Marília

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>  Jeremy:
>
> This looks quite good to me; it is a substantive statement that reflects
> what I believe to be widely held views in this caucus.
>
> You responded to Parminder’s comments about regional IGFs by adding some
> statements about criteria for recognition, which was taken from earlier
> statements we made about Dynamic Coalitions. While I don’t oppose either of
> those statements, I would offer another option: simply replace “should” play
> a more important role with “could” play a more important role and ask that
> this option be explored in future discussions.
>
> I propose this because I am not sure I understand the full implications of
> such a move, and I think it is a major procedural amendment that may require
> more thought and discussion.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 11, 2010 2:16 AM
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG
> questionnaire
>
>
>
> I don't want to rush anybody, but since I will be travelling a lot in the
> next few weeks it would be ideal if we could finalise our response to the
> MAG questionnaire soon (in any case, it must be presented by 24 October).
>  To this end, I'm posting this as a tentatively final draft, which I think
> captures the points made to date.
>
>
>
> From now on, please try to limit your comments to precisely worded (and
> preferably minor) amendments.  Depending on how things go, I would then like
> to put this to a consensus call at the end of the week, and we can move on
> to the next statement on Enhanced Cooperation and the ITU vs IGF/ICANN.
>
>
>
> As before, the latest amendments in this draft will show underlined or
> struck out if you have a suitable email client or can consult the Web
> archives at http://lists.cpsr.org/.
>
>
>
> *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.
>
>
>
> *It is also very important that the established process by which one-third
> of the MAG members are rotated each year is executed methodically, so that
> the composition of the MAG is completely refreshed every three years.*
>
>
>
> 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*the IGC* **
>
> 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*members of the IGC* broadly agree 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.  *Whatever the precise method used, diverse
> participation from civil society in the nomination of its representatives
> must be ensured.*
>
>
>
> 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.**
>
> * *
>
> *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 in an objectively and timely manner, could represent
> real regional contributions to the process.*
>
> * The outcomes of regional meetings should also serve to better clarify
> and sharpen discussions, reducing the complexity of themes into concrete
> issues to be addressed at the 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 *proactive* 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/20101012/6ee3a870/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