[IGFmaglist] Meeting Documents
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Wed Dec 3 04:19:44 EST 2014
Hi,
As do I.
I think that the MAG itself needs to discuss the ToR, and in fact would
think that this is something we should have consultative input from the
community on.
avri
On 03-Dec-14 10:07, Lea Kaspar wrote:
> Thank you for sharing these documents. I have similar questions as
> Patrick and Izumi regarding the MAG terms of reference.
>
> This seems like an important issue that merits a substantive
> discussion. The agenda today is probably too crowded to have an in
> depth conversation at this MAG meeting, but hopefully we can take this
> up through the listserv afterwards.
>
> Best,
> Lea
>
>
> On 3 Dec 2014, at 09:25, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org <mailto:iza at anr.org>>
> wrote:
>
>> Patrick,
>>
>> Good points. Several of Civil society members (current and former ;-)
>> have similar questions as to the process and substance of the current
>> MAG TOR. To some extent, environment has changed,
>>
>> Besides, receiving all these documents after the MAG meeting has
>> started is somewhat odd. These should have been sent to ALL MAG
>> members much prior to the meeting and also be visible to public.
>>
>> I don't want to blame anyone, but these should be much more seriously
>> considered as we mature.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>>
>> 2014-12-03 11:17 GMT+09:00 Patrick Ryan <patrickryan at google.com
>> <mailto:patrickryan at google.com>>:
>>
>> Thank you for sending these over. The Terms of Reference
>> document is completely new to me (for convenience, I've uploaded
>> it here
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LqJfcyke0W-3gR9SSA0OoERc_hpn2kAExCH3Mg7v82c/edit>).
>> I have many questions! Many questions! Are these adopted in some
>> way, or is it perhaps a strawman that the Secretariat is sending
>> out for review and comment by the MAG? Here's a stab at the top
>> 10 questions that came up in reading these tonight:
>>
>> 1. *Process for adoption of ToRs. *The "Terms of Reference" for
>> a UN project or mission typically refers to a formally
>> adopted process through a UN procedure of some kind. What was
>> the review process for these ToRs? Who drafted them, when
>> were they drafted, and by what mechanism were they adopted?
>> 2. *MAG's expectation to publicize on social networks. *The
>> "Individual Member Responsibilities" says that MAG members
>> are "expected to carry out the following tasks" . . .
>> including . . . "Make use of social networks to publicize
>> IGF related activities, posting on organisational websites,
>> etc. (such as calls for input, summary records of MAG call
>> and meetings etc.)" This is a good goal, but it's really
>> new---are there any comms or PR guidelines that the UN has
>> for what the MAG members are expected to say (or avoid
>> saying) publicly in this regard?
>> 3. *Expectation to fundraise, but fundraising meetings are
>> closed to most MAG members. *Another expected task is to
>> "Actively explore new fundraising opportunities for
>> contributions to the IGF trust fund, bringing new ideas to
>> the attention to the IGF Secretariat and DPADM/DESA." Does
>> this mean that the Donor's meeting is open to all MAG members
>> and an agenda and invitation will be openly shared to the MAG
>> in advance? If not, what is the mechanism that the MAG has
>> to have the information required for this task if they're not
>> part of the closed Donor's group?
>> 4. *Clarification of MAG expectations to interface with external
>> bodies.* Some of the external-facing expectations of the MAG
>> aren't clear what they mean; maybe some examples could be
>> useful. For example, working with national IGFs is clear, but
>> what are the "external bodies" referred to in the TORs?
>> Also, The Tunis Agenda Para 72 is not a mandate for the MAG
>> but instead for the IGF overall as a "Forum," so perhaps we
>> could have guidance on how this should apply to MAG members?
>> See ToR expectation enumerated as follows: "Liaise with
>> external bodies including national and regional IGF
>> initiatives (pursuant to IGF mandate 72(c))"
>> 5. *Approval and review of documents. *What does the following
>> expectation of MAG members mean? "Prepare or approve, as
>> necessary, balanced briefing materials on issues to be
>> addressed by the IGF?"
>> 6. *Chatham House Rule is impossible under current processes.*
>> The "Procedures and Responsibilities" section says that "MAG
>> meetings have traditionally been held under the 'Chatham
>> House rule' and have followed pre-approved agendas prepared
>> by the Secretariat together with the MAG itself prior to each
>> meeting." Two questions: (a) How is it even remotely
>> possible that MAG meetings could be held under Chatham House
>> if the meetings are recorded, transcribed and available
>> publicly (this must be a mistake, right?) and (b) When are
>> "pre-approved agendas" circulated for review and approval?
>> Chatham House seems to be an impossible expectation to meet
>> with public transcript, and Chatham House would probably
>> be consistent with the commitment of the Secretary General's
>> note SG/A/1006
>> <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sga1006.doc.htm> ("the Advisory
>> Group will carry out its work in an open, inclusive and
>> transparent manner, and will seek to make the best possible
>> use of electronic working methods, including online
>> consultations").
>> 7. *Source of MAG "working tasks" unclear. *Who drafted and by
>> what method were the "primary working tasks" of the MAG adopted?
>> 8. *MAG selection---role of the groups that make recommendations
>> on MAG members*. The "Duration of Term" says that "It is the
>> prerogative of the United Nations Secretary-General to select
>> MAG members." There's no mention------at all----about the
>> significant selection process that each stakeholder group
>> provides in advance. Is that part of the UN process?
>> 9. *MAG selection---process.* If the selection of MAG members
>> is, as stated, the "sole prerogative" to the
>> Secretary-General, how do we reconcile this with the
>> expectation globally that the IGF is a multistakeholder
>> institution? (Not to be coy, but is it that the
>> MAG-as-program committee is multistakeholder but none of the
>> other governance matters of the IGF are
>> multistakeholder---including, even, the selection of the
>> multistakeholder members?) It's critical, because a MAG
>> that's appointed at the sole discretion of an executive (even
>> if based on recommendations) is more like a "cabinet,"
>> whereas a MAG that's appointed by the stakeholder groups is
>> much more of a democratic process.
>> 10. *Clarification of yearly MAG evaluations. *The "duration of
>> term" also says that "MAG members are appointed for a term of
>> one year. Generally, this term is automatically renewable for
>> two more consecutive years, contingent on a yearly evaluation
>> of their engagement in MAG activities." What is this "yearly
>> evaluation?" Will the Secretariat provide a "yearly
>> evaluation" to the MAG members (I don't think I've ever seen
>> a yearly evaluation?)
>>
>> Sadly, I have to return home on a flight late tomorrow morning,
>> but since these documents were only teed up and circulated for
>> discussion this last evening, I trust that we can set up a time
>> to review them separately?
>>
>> Could we please set some of these up as agenda items to discuss
>> at one of our next MAG meetings?
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Chengetai Masango
>> <cmasango at unog.ch <mailto:cmasango at unog.ch>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please find attached the following documents:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Report of the Working Group on Improvements to the IGF
>>
>> 2. The MAG working group response on implementation of
>> the improvements
>>
>> 3. IGF Secretariat response on implementation of the
>> improvements
>>
>> 4. IGF Workshop Proposal Guidelines
>>
>> 5. IGF workshop Proposal Form Template
>>
>> 6. Workshop review and evaluation process, as outlined
>> in the Summary Report of the February 2014 Open Consultations
>> and MAG Meeting;
>>
>> 7. IGF MAG ToR
>>
>> 8. List of past IGF themes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> Chengetai
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> >> Izumi Aizu <<
>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo
>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,
>> Japan
>> www.anr.org <http://www.anr.org>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Igfmaglist mailing list
>> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org <mailto:Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20141203/25a33b83/attachment.htm>
More information about the Igfmaglist
mailing list