[governance] TENTATIVE FINAL draft response to MAG questionnaire

[shaila mistry]

Hi Jeremy
I support the responses below. I made some changes under q 1and 2 and  
underlined them.
Many thanks
 Shaila Rao Mistry

 challenge the rules ...push the barriers....
............live beyond your existential means !!



________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Sent: Sun, October 10, 2010 11:15:52 PM
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 and heard 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 societythe 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 societymembers 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 orextend similar privileges to civil society.  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. Don't print this email unless necessary. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101012/f50532e3/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