[governance] MAG Selection [URGENT]

Sat Feb 4 12:33:04 EST 2012

Thanks for this Marilla but I'm a bit unsure as to the status of what you
have quoted below and what role if any the IGC can or should play in this.

As i was going through the points and thinking of responses/positions a few
things jumped out at me... 
    the sheer complexity of the issues that are being addressed. While many
of them are part of the on-going discourse in a variety of academic
disciplines and within the broader CS community to a considerable degree the
Internet "changes everything" :) that is, the Internet/ICTs changes the
nature and impact of a lot of traditional governance
issues/approaches/strategies.  I don't know that those have been very
well-worked out partly because ICTs are such a work in progress (mGov
anyone?) but issues like "transparency", and organization and governance of
a CS "caucus" need very much to be thought through in our current if
evolving environment.

    the significane of what is being discussed and to a degree "decided"
upon here.  To some extent (it's hard to know the degree) these
discussions/developments around IG and the IGF are providing a model for
broader developments in governance in an Internet era. This gives
discussions on these issues a significance rather beyond the immediate
planning/staging of the IGC or IGF.

What this tells me, and particularly from a CS perspective is that we as CS
in the context of the IGC need to step back a bit and enter into a more
deliberate process of reflection and positon development on these very
important issues. 

I'm wondering if funds couldn't be found to stage an online/offline event to
discuss these issues and to help to formulate a CS position on these. (Note
that the OECD counterpart to the IGC has now obtained limited but useful
funding from Soros/OSI.

Best,

Mike

 -----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 4:42 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Anriette Esterhuysen
Subject: Re: [governance] MAG Selection [URGENT]

Congratulations to the tentative list of nominees. Thanks to NomCom for
performing this important task and thanks in advance for the report they are
producing. 

As you know, one of the topics that are being discussed in the WG on IGF
improvements is precisely the process for nominating MAG members and the
role of MAG. MAG will have an even more fundamental role in a strengthened
IGF and the next group of selected MAG members will be invited to find
concrete mechanisms to give shape to some of the suggestions for improvement
that will come out of the WG. That is to say that, in my view, the next
group of MAG members will be appointed in a crucial moment. 

It is very important that they are supported by the community and that they
are able to reverberate this support and legitimacy. The selection process
is important on this regard, as it puts in place an important cornerstone.
This is why this process needs to be documented and that the parameters for
selection need to be made clear.

The WG has been discussing parameters for the selection of MAG and also some
of the responsibilities of MAG members. I reproduce below a compilation
(rough text) of points raised by the WG about the MAG, not only as a
contribution for the report of the NomCom (if some of these topics could be
covered in their report, it would be great, as we would be walking the
talk), but also for discussion. From this thread I am sure that this topic
is a concern of the community, and it would be great to have feedback about
what is being discussed in the WG about it. The report will probably be
structured with broad agreements as "headlines", further detailed on more
specific proposals.

Marília

B.II  MAG

Broad agreement on the need to rotate MAG members regularly, keep MAG
meetings transparent 

Broad agreement on the openness and transparency of MAG meetings

- The MAG should open its meeting to observers and make its proceedings
available in the form of a live text streaming. This verbatim record is
available on the IGF Web site. This proceeding is recommended for future
meetings in order to enhance the openness and transparency of its work. 

- Rotation of the MAG members, with one third rotated every year, should be
preserved, with a three-year limit to each members term in order to provide
opportunities to all interested participants and to ensure fair
representation

Broad agreement that the constitution of the MAG should be done in a
transparent and documented fashion

Broad agreement on the transparency of the self-management by each
stakeholder group

- In light of transparency, stakeholder groups should publicise their
selection process and should identify the process that works best for their
own culture and methods of engagement

- Selection of any stakeholder group may not be confined to be mediated
through any one particular body.

- The selection would be based on proposed candidate lists made by the three
non-governmental stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups are encouraged
to nominate a sufficiently large slate of candidates to provide some
flexibility in selection of MAG members and are asked to ensure appropriate
gender balance 

- One possibility mentioned by the MAG group itself last November: 

      - A form of 'triage' that would be used to ensure appropriate
geographical balance among MAG members. This 'triage' could be carried out
by a trusted group of former non-governmental MAG members, perhaps including
some MAG members who are being rotated out. This trusted group would work in
active consultation with the respective stakeholder groups. 

The recommendation would then be submitted to the Secretary-General for
approval. One proposal was that the list of all MAG nominees to be submitted
to the Secretary-General should be published on the IGF website. 

- Another selection process was mentioned capturing the essence of the
NomCom idea, or we better call it "selection committee" to avoid confusion
with existing systems in other organizations.

       - The selection Committee members, appointed by the IGF Chair, should
be drawn fairly from representatives of stakeholders across the different
regions and constituencies.

Preferably, the Selection Committee would include experts with wide-ranging
knowledge of Internet governance, previous experience of program preparation
and strong links to various stakeholder groups.

This Selection Committee would select candidates for the MAG ensuring
balanced representation of geographical distribution, gender and the wide
range of stakeholders. The final selection of candidates should be submitted
to the UN Secretary-General for final approval.

Open and transparent selection process and working process

Broad agreement that the MAG needs a clear Terms of Reference. 

Requirements for MAG members:

Potential stakeholder representatives should represent groups or
constituencies interest and not private interests.

Selected members should present:

- Proven ability to work as a team member 

- Active participation in the IGF process 

- Extensive linkages within one's own stakeholder group and, if possible, to
other stakeholder groups 

- Experience and expertise in Internet governance issues

Responsibilities of MAG members:

- Attend three meetings in Geneva per year; Participate in the yearly global
meeting;

-  Participate in inter-sessional work; 

-  Make outreach to wider community, including national and regional IGF
type initiatives and bring other networks into the MAG; 

-  Bring in comments from the community; 

-  Explain recommendations to the community. 

-  Willingness to commit to work and follow through 

Responsibilities of the MAG as a whole:

-  guidelines on actual tour of duty (length of service, rotations,
performance criteria such as removal/replacement of MAG members that do not
participate)

- Develop the detailed programme including the identification of issues of
concern; 

- Selecting workshops and other meetings; 

- Defining how best to plan and organize the meetings; 

- Organizing main sessions and where necessary participate in dedicated
thematic working groups; 

- Establishing linkages between workshops and main sessions;

- Facilitating the organization of workshops; 

- Coordinating panels and supporting panellists, moderators and speakers at
the annual meeting; 

- Liaising with their respective communities;

-Publishing reports. 

- Additional outreach with other organizations and in conjunction with
secretariat

Miscellaneous: 

- Giving idea of MAG selection process, keep it a dynamic committee.

- Consider the role of the MAG in the context of an evolving IGF and in the
context of IGF improvements and the recommendations for IGF improvements.

- Consider relationships between the MAG and secretariat--roles and
responsibilities

- Consider the role of the MAG in context of IGF no longer being just a
single event but rather having evolved into a process.

- Consider mechanisms to enable the MAG to be more efficient.

- Importance of open consultations and role of MAG as facilitator and
listener of what happens in consultations, important input into the process

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org>
wrote:

Dear Parminder and all

On 02/02/12 02:31, parminder wrote:
> Congrats to all the nominees. A very good list.

Yes.. congrats to all.

>
> However, independent of the results produced which I welcome and
> support, I strongly agree with the sentiment of Avri's questions below.

Yes, so do I.

> Representativity is the central issue of democracy, and its processes
> must be taken very very seriously, even if sometimes just forthe
> process's sake. I may be wrong, but I seem not to have seen the kind of
> openness (proactive and not just formal), transparency, out-reach effort
> etc that is required for the nomination/ election activity. Things like:
> we need to make repeated calls for nomination, encourage people to
> nominate themselves and others, pulbicize the process and perhaps the
> list of nomcom members as well, make active out reach to various CS
> entities inviting nomination, keeping the list posted of all
> developments, ......
>
> For instance, APC I am sure will forward its own slate of names to the
> IGF secretariat. They should have been invited to submit their nominees
> for IGC nomcom's consideration as well (and this has happened in the
> past).

Parminder, we actually did submit our list of names to the IGC nomcom as
we think the IGC selection is an important one.  We are not sure that
the IGC nomcom considered our list as did not receive any acknowledgement.

One person on our list is in the IGC list: Bill Drake, and we are happy
to see this. Bill has worked very hard with the MAG as a 'non-MAG'
member from the beginning, and has been a strong advocate for
development issues and CS interests, so I really hope he does make the MAG.

The other people on our list were (as Bill posted).

Carlos Afonso (Brazil)
Magaly Pazello (Brazil)
Shahzad Ahmad (Pakistan)
Anriette Esterhuysen (South Africa)
David Souter (United Kingdom /IISD)

We will send these directly to the secretariat as well.

Anriette

Enriching our catchment of potential candidates and thus the
> final list in this way greatly enhances IGC's legitimacy. And in the
> civil society space legitimacy building and losing is a very live and
> dynamic process. Every single act adds or takes away from it. At times,
> like for the WG on IGF improvements, IGC has been considered the single
> point of CS contact and representivity. We need to work hard to live up
> to such a high responsibility, as mentioned by Avri. And I am really not
> sure if we did in this case, though I am happy to be corrected.
>
> It is important to note that in the WG on IGF improvements we have been
> seeking higher transparency, focussed and active out reach effort, broad
> basing the pool of candidates etc for MAG selection, and we need to
> practise what we preach.
>
> Among many other things, I also could not understand the meaning and use
> of having candidates submit their information in the 'required' format
> after the list of nominees is published. Isnt the required information
> supposed to be submitted precisely to aid the evaluation of nominees?
>
> There a few other points I will like to make, but a little later...
> parminder
>
>
>
> On Wednesday 01 February 2012 09:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Good names all.
>>
>> But,
>>
>> What process was used?
>> Was there a public call for nominations? Did I miss seeing that?
>> Where are their statements?  Did I miss seeing that?  Are they posted on
the web site anywhere?
>> Is there a reason for each of these selections in terms of IGC
expectations?  Did I miss seeing that? Are they posted somewhere?
>>
>> In the past we have gotten a Nomcom chair outlining everything in detail.
Did I miss that?
>>
>> The IGC's claim to represent Civil Society in Ig is tenuous at best
>> The lack of any information (or did I miss it?) on this selection risks
that even further.
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 1 Feb 2012, at 08:06, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> The Names that were submitted to the Coordinators by the NomCom are as
follows:
>>>      Lillian Nalwoga (Ms.) -  Uganda
>>>      Izumi AIZU (Mr) -  Japan
>>>      Michael Gurstein (Mr)  - Canada
>>>      Robert Guerra (Mr) - Canadian & European (Spain)
>>>      Bill Drake (Mr) - North American (Lives in Geneva)
>>>      Fatima Cambronero (Ms) - Argentina
>>>      Fouad Bajwa (Mr) (current MAG member) -  Pakistan
>>>
>>> However, these nominees were advised that failure to send their
information in  via the required template would mean that their names would
not be sent.
>>>
>>> Kind Regards

>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
<salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com>
<mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> We thank the NOMCOM for selecting MAG candidates.
>>>
>>> In the interest of transparency, NOMCOM wrote to advise that they had
completed selection of the MAG. We have yet to receive the information in
the required format and an email was sent out to the potential candidates to
submit their information in the template shown within the email. Potential
candidates were advised that failing to have the information submitted in
required format could mean that their names would not be put forward. They
have been given 12 hours to respond to enable this information to be sent.
>>>
>>> Submission of names were to be sent on the 31st January 2012.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Cell: +679 998  <tel:%2B679%20998%202851> 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
>>>
>>> Tweeter: @SalanietaT
>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
>>> Cell: +679 998  <tel:%2B679%20998%202851> 2851
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:

>>>   governance at lists.igcaucus.org <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>

>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>   http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>   http://lists.igcaucus.org/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
>>>
>>

--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726  <tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692> 1692

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

For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/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

-- 
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/20120204/681e7db7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/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