[Mmwg] Everton Lucero's paper on the MAG : call for comments

[Adam Peake]

Bertrand, comments I sent to the advisory group 
list after reading Everton's paper below.  They 
were an immediate reaction, not as well thought 
out as they might be.  They almost follow the 
format you suggest, but I included short comments 
on the second paper at the end.

(and apologies for cross posting, part also sent to the governance list)

Adam



At 2:38 AM +0900 9/7/07, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>I wasn't able to attend the the 2nd day of the 
>MAG meeting when Everton submitted these papers, 
>I do not know how they were discussed or why 
>they were accepted by the group, seems a bit 
>unusual. I saw the papers last night when I got 
>off a flight from Geneva to Boston and sent a 
>rough reaction (i.e. not very well thought out 
>:-) to the MAG list.  My comments on Everton's 
>paper below.
>
>Best,
>
>Adam
>
>
>
>At 10:37 AM +0900 9/6/07, Adam Peake wrote:
>>
>>Dear Everton, colleagues:
>>
>>I am tired after travelling from Geneva to the
>>US, but here are some initial comments on the
>>paper "Elements to be considered for structuring
>>the IGF ".
>>
>>I'm quoting the relevant text from the paper followed by my comment:
>>
>>"The AG should act as a supporting mechanism to
>>the organization, procedure and conduct of
>>business at the IGF; "
>>
>>comment: I believe the AG should be responsible
>>for implementing the suggestions/recommendations
>>of all stakeholders as expressed in public
>>consultations (meetings and other calls for
>>contributions etc.) regarding the organization,
>>procedure and conduct of business of the IGF on
>>an ongoing basis. I don't understand what
>>"supporting mechanism" means. Saying "at the IGF"
>>suggests to me that we would be discussing an
>>annual meeting and meeting only, not a process. I
>>think we should consider the IGF an ongoing
>>process of dialogue. Need to be careful the AG
>>does not become an executive, but interprets and
>>implements in good faith and in a transparent and
>>open manner what we receive from stakeholders.
>>
>>
>>"The AG should have no more than _____ members"
>>
>>comment: Ideally the number should be quite
>>small, but I think diversity requirements will
>>force the AG to remain around the current number.
>>48 is divisible by four.
>>
>>
>>"AG members should be appointed by and are
>>accountable to their respective stakeholder
>>group;"
>>
>>comment: I am uncomfortable with this.  I don't
>>see how I could be accountable to global civil
>>society (nor how any government member, for
>>example, could be accountable to all
>>governments.)  I see my role as acting as a
>>connector between CS organizations and the
>>advisory group.  I will do my best to represent
>>what I understand to be principles and positions
>>I believe to be important to global civil
>>society, but I cannot see a way for us to
>>realistically be accountable to our respective
>>stakeholder groups.
>>
>>I'm concerned this notion of accountability could
>>only be achieved by adopting separated processes
>>in which the four major stakeholder groupings
>>would reach agreement on issues and bring them to
>>the advisory group.  i.e. each would hold its own
>>consultations, come to agreement on positions,
>>and then enter into some discussion or
>>negotiation with the other groups once in the AG
>>setting.  Sounds a bit like a Bureau.
>>
>>
>>"Each stakeholder group shall appoint their
>>representatives to the AG according to its own
>>procedure, which should be transparent,
>>democratic and inclusive; "
>>
>>comment: How many? Should the four groups appoint
>>equal numbers? If not why not? (Noting government
>>members are the largest grouping in the current
>>arrangement.)
>>
>>As I think was mentioned during the open
>>consultation on Monday, a problem with this
>>suggestion is there is no way to achieve overall
>>balance of the AG if each group appoints members
>>independently.  We need diversity of geography,
>>gender, and expertise (by expertise I mean in
>>terms of subject and also in the sub-sectors of
>>our respective stakeholder groups.)
>>
>>
>>"Balanced regional representation should be
>>observed by each stakeholder group, when rotating
>>its representatives;"
>>
>>comment: Regional representation is not the only
>>factor.  Members need to have different subject
>>matter expertise: for example some of us know
>>more about access (issues and people) and others
>>more about critical Internet resources.
>>Membership needs to be finely balanced across all
>>stakeholder groups.
>>
>>
>>"Gender balance should be sought."
>>
>>comment: Suggest that in the spirit of the WSIS
>>documents and accepted good practise, Gender
>>balance should be required. An expert on Gender
>>and ICT would be a welcome addition to the
>>chair's advisor group(s), the Brazilian groups
>>seems particularly male :-)
>>
>>
>>"The AG should be co-chaired by one
>>representative appointed by the UN
>>Secretary-General and one representative
>>appointed by the host country;"
>>
>>comment: I think the role of the host country
>>representative co-chair to be defined, why it is
>>necessary explained (I mean no disrespect to Mr.
>>Vianna, but as we have discussed the importance
>>of transparency it seems a good idea to explain
>>this important change.) The Secretary-General's
>>appointee would logically be responsible for
>>overall convening of the meeting, while it would
>>make sense for the local host appointee to be
>>oriented to logistical matters. I do not mean to
>>suggest a strict division of labor, but a
>>tendency.
>>
>>
>>"At the invitation of the AG, non-members should
>>participate at AG meetings as observers;"
>>
>>comment: How will this be achieved?  Consensus of
>>all AG members?  A vote (two third agreement?) If
>>a way to implement this suggestion can be agreed
>>then it would need to be done well in advance so
>>people are able to plan travel to the meetings so
>>as not to disadvantage those who are not based
>>locally (i.e. stakeholders from developing
>>nations in particular.)
>>
>>
>>"The AG should work on an intersessional basis, as deemed necessary;"
>>
>>comment: I don't understand why it is necessary to say this.
>>
>>"The AG should publish its proceedings and decisions."
>>
>>comment: this seems contrary to what I thought we
>>had agreed on Tuesday.  Rather than "publish its
>>proceedings and decisions" I suggest the
>>secretariat should publish a summary of
>>discussions of AG meetings.
>>
>>Hope this helps, and apologies for this rather rushed response to the paper.
>>
>>I will try to send comments on the other paper "A
>>³package² deal for Rio" later.  But one
>>observation on "substance" is to note the
>>increased emphasis on Access, and discussion of
>>critical Internet resources consistent with WSIS
>>principles seems a departure from where I thought
>>we were headed with the session? And I don't
>>remember we agreed on a session on the future of
>>the IGF structure etc, though the civil society
>>Internet Governance Caucus is leading
>>organization of a workshop on the IGF mandate and
>>would like to see some discussion on this in a
>>main session.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>Adam
>>
>




At 11:48 AM +0200 9/12/07, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>Hi all,
>

<snip>