[IRPCoalition] Fwd:Letter to IGF Secretariat calling for greater transparency re: MAG 2017 renewal as part of IGF retreat consultation

IRPCoalition info at irpcharter.org
Tue Nov 1 13:00:15 EET 2016 

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: 	[bestbits] [CSCG update] Letter to IGF Secretariat calling for 
greater transparency re: MAG 2017 renewal as part of IGF retreat 
consultation
Date: 	Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:38:28 +0000
From: 	Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
Reply-To: 	Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org>
To: 	bestbits at lists.bestbits.net



Dear all,

We are writing to inform you that the all representatives of the CSCG 
have sent a letter to the IGF Secretariat, copied in full below, as part 
of the public consultation on the IGF retreat but specifically regarding 
MAG nominations. This follows on from a conversation which brought to 
light the upcoming MAG elections and the need to ensure greater 
transparency in that process. It builds on the existing IGF retreat 
written documents 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/igf-retreat-written-inputs>.

Currently, we are waiting for the text to be published on the following 
site 
(http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/ 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/>), 
after which we will seek to follow-up based on the response from the 
Secretariat. In the meantime, we welcome any feedback on this text. We 
are also open to receive comments from everyone with suggestions on 
further engagement in all processes concerning CS representation.

We will keep you updated on the response from the Secretariat and next 
steps from there.

Many thanks, any questions do let us know.

Best,
Sheetal and Poncelet.

------------------

Oct 31, 2016

Dear IGF Secretariat,

We are pleased to submit this contribution for your public consultation 
on the IGF retreaton behalf of the Internet Governance Civil Society 
Co­ordination Group (CSCG). CSCG exists solely to ensure a coordinated 
civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society 
appointments to outside bodies. It comprises representatives of the 
coalition members of the Association for Progressive Communications, 
Best Bits, Internet Governance Caucus, Just Net Coalition, and 
Non­-Commercial Stakeholders Group of ICANN. Together the reach of these 
groups extends to many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, as 
well as a much greater number of individuals. These comments are made to 
p. 37, 39 and 40 of the Review Platform, therefore, we do replicate the 
text in all paragraphs.

In line with our mandate, this submission concentrates specifically on 
improving the nomination process and make­up of the Multistakeholder 
Advisory Group (MAG). In order to follow the key actions taken so far, 
we take this opportunity to bring attentionto the prior steps related to 
MAG nominations:

1.In New York, from 14 to 16 July 2016, the IGF Retreat took place. The 
result of this meeting, is a public document^^[1] <#_ftn1>*open to 
public consultation until 31October 2016.*With regard to MAG, the 
paragraphs 37 to 49 address different points related to its work, and 
its selection process. Relevant information is copied below:

/¶37 Improving the nomination process and make-up of the 
Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), and the MAG Chair/

/¶ 39/

/There was general agreement that there is a need for a more transparent 
selection process across the different stakeholders groups and clearer 
criteria and priorities to enable more consistent candidate selection 
processes across the different stakeholder communities. At the same 
time, many expressed that it should ultimately be the prerogative of the 
UN Secretary-General to exercise his or her final judgement in selecting 
MAG representatives having flexibility to ensure appropriate diversity./

/¶ 40/

/A need was also expressed to have greater awareness and transparency in 
the selection processes used by the different stakeholder groups. Some 
felt there should be a set of specific criteria and priorities for 
nominations. Others felt that it is difficult for the communities to 
identify, target and come up with adequate candidates with insufficient 
information on what the UN Secretary-General is looking for./

2. On 18th October 2016, The eighth IGF Virtual MAG Meeting of the 2016 
IGF preparatory cycle took place. Ms. Lynn St. Amour moderated the 
meeting as Chair of the MAG and Mr.Chengetai Masango represented the IGF 
Secretariat.

The Summary Report: IGF Virtual Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG9 
Meeting VIII - 18 October 2016, states on p. 8):

/“Finally, the IGF Secretariat noted that the MAG renewal process would 
get started in the coming weeks, to try and ensure that the 2017 MAG was 
in place as early as possible. *There was also a short discussion about 
whether or not names of MAG nominations should be made public or not.* /

*/The Secretariat was asked to bring this question to the MAG list for 
discussion among the stakeholder groups as this is an important and 
quite nuanced point/*/./

*/Another suggestion that was made in regards to the MAG renewal process 
was that the Secretariat could update public information on the MAG, 
specifically the amount of years that each MAG member have served, their 
stakeholder group and geographical region, etc./*

*/Further information on updates to the MAG renewal process will be 
circulated to the MAG and wider community in the coming weeks, and the 
Secretariat, together with UNDESA, will make every effort to be as 
transparent as possible in regards to the nomination and selection 
process. /*/The next MAG virtual meeting is scheduled for 8 November at 
14:00 UTC.^*^[2] * <#_ftn2>//“/

3. The recording of this session was made public^^[3] <#_ftn3>. Even 
though sometimes is it is very difficult to listen with clarity and it 
was not always clear who was the speaker since the webex screen was not 
recorded, from minute 49.30 the discussion about the MAG selection 
process was raised by Chengetai, as an A.O.B. item.Specifically he 
pointed out that in the past, the names of the nominees for 
consideration of the MAG have not been public and he addressed the 
question to the MAG if it should be like this (non public) for the next 
MAG renewal. *Until minute 1.06.23 no decision was made and a request 
for written updates on this discussion sent to the list was made so as 
to gather feedback, highlighting the importance of transparency (minute 
52.06)*

After reading both the IGF Retreat document and the MAG summary along 
with the recording of the virtual session it is still unclear how 
transparent the selection of MAG members and mostly, civil society 
stakeholders, will be. In this sense, the CSCG contributes to *the 
public consultation on the IGF retreat addressing its attentions on the 
specific points related to MAG renewal. We stress the importance of 
transparency in civil society selection as MAG stakeholders and , in 
this sense, wetake this opportunity to reiterate our availability to and 
willingness contribute and collaborate in the process of selection of 
MAG members.*

*The selection process of MAG members should be inclusive, predictable, 
transparent and fully documented. More transparency is needed*. We 
believe that, in the interests of transparency, names and application 
details of all candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known. 
Whether this should be at the close of applications, or at the close of 
assessments, needs to be discussed further in the light of detailed 
procedures.

*Stakeholder procedures for making selections should also be publicly 
available*(CSCG’s current procedures can be found at 
http://www.internetgov-­cs.org/procedures 
<http://www.internetgov%C2%ADcs.org/procedures>)

We recommend that*in the interests of transparency,* *names and 
application details of all*

*candidates for MAG selection should be publicly known.*This requirement 
should also be

included when stakeholder groups provide their own processes, and also 
if a more centralised process is run via IGF Secretariat.

These comments are based on the best practice we have observed with other

organisations in selecting multistakeholder representatives. We offer 
the above suggestions in the spirit of co­operation , as we also want to 
see the best possible representation of stakeholders. And again, we 
offer our services to work with you and other stakeholder groups to 
refine procedures to ensure more acceptable, transparent and 
representative results.

*Analía Aspis - Richard Hill*

*Chairs, Internet Governance Civil Society Coordination Group*


------------------------------------------------------------------------

^^[1] 
<#_ftnref1>http://www.intgovforum.org/review/igf-retreat-proceedings-ideas-and-suggestions/

^^[2] 
<#_ftnref2>http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20161025/0491282a/attachment-0001.pdf

^^[3] 
<#_ftnref3>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-d-EIIQWsUiemNhVGwxbFRBeGc/view



-- 
*
*
*
*
*Sheetal Kumar*
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T: +44 (0)203 818 3258 0337| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/mailman/private/irp/attachments/20161101/e5431bd9/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

More information about the IRP mailing list