[governance] MAG meeting

Tue Mar 1 18:50:18 EST 2011

Hello all,

time to step out of my lurkerdom and speak up to help clarify things.

Adam wrote:
>I think there was a goal of one third per rotation.

Roland replied:
> Yes, there's a subtle difference between aiming for a 3yr tenure where

> the longest-serving 1/3 retire each year, and replacing 1/3 of the 
> members.
> There's a middle course, which is to put the longest-serving 1/3 "up
for 
> re-selection", which could mean having a 6yr stint. And would give
some 
> security of tenure to newly appointed people.
> But as this is all happening inside a black box, we don't really know 
> what the methodology is.

According to my recollection, no specification about the rotation
principle was made that called for swapping out the entire group at some
point in time. No rule about longest-serving members having to go after
a defined period of time, or that a 3-year term or renewal of any such
3-year term would exist or not. This was simply not on the agenda at any
time to introduce lengthy procedures and rules, which would have been
difficult to agree to, considering the non-negotiating role of the MAG,
and the need to remain efficient, given the constraints of time etc.

I recall that there was broad consensus along those lines:
a) approximately 1/3 of members would rotate, taking into account gender
and regional balance
b) no set process for different stakeholder groups, but they may name
candidates amongst which the new MAG members would be selected
c) basically support for a "black box" approach, under the formal
decision by the UN SG (with the tacit understanding that this was fine
as long as the black box was managed ably by Nitin and Markus in
assuring proper balancing of stakeholder groups and interests)

We did publish reports of the mailing list contributions at the time,
anonymized to account for Chatham House Rules. See:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/magabout/110-magdigest 

According to one mail, "[t]he principles and modalities of the MAG
renewal are set out in the Summary Record of the MAG meeting on 27-28
February 2008." That report can be found here:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/MAG.Summary.28.02.2008.v3.pdf 

And I found a follow-up discussion on the rotation principles was held
in March 2008. Excerpts of the MAG Meeting report were cited in the
contribution by Writer A beginning on page 3 of this record:
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/AGD/AG%20emails%2010mar08.pdf and there
were other contributions following up on that later on.

Hope this helps to refresh memories and to brig up to speed those who
may have joined the discussion at a later time. 

As for the discussion about the future process of rotation, I would
guess this would be up to the IGF MAG itself or would be on the agenda
of the UN CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvements (UN-CSTD-WG-IGF-I :-)).
The precedent we did set was to rely on the black box approach. Whether
it was wise not to take care of the time when neither Nitin nor Markus
would be present is another story. 

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of ext Roland Perry
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 11:17 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] MAG meeting

In message <p06240829c98de3cbcfad@[10.58.179.68]>, at 08:16:41 on Sat, 
26 Feb 2011, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes

>>almost no rotation in 2008, and a new influx of about 20 in 2009 who 
>>join 16 people appointed in 2006 and 18 from 2007.
>
>I think there was a goal of one third per rotation.

Yes, there's a subtle difference between aiming for a 3yr tenure where 
the longest-serving 1/3 retire each year, and replacing 1/3 of the 
members.

There's a middle course, which is to put the longest-serving 1/3 "up for

re-selection", which could mean having a 6yr stint. And would give some 
security of tenure to newly appointed people.

But as this is all happening inside a black box, we don't really know 
what the methodology is.

>There's probably some record in the MAG list or record of a
consultation.
>
>Pretty sure it was about one third each year as that would have meant 
>by the end of the five year mandate the full MAG would have swapped 
>out.  It's a pretty sustainable refresh rate.

-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t