[WG-Strategy] Draft: Ideas how to operationalize the MHLB

Wed Aug 26 10:29:34 EDT 2020

Dear all

+1 to Raúl's position and considerations.

I can also live with both options, but my initial preference was also 
Option B and I still prefer this option.

I agree that 25 people is too many for the MHLB. There is a risk that 
this becomes a "second" MAG. Balance can be achieved by rotating 
members, as suggested by Raúl. The same applies for Option B. A 
leadership team should be small.

I suggest that clear ToR are defined for the MHLB (or for the leadership 
team in Option B). This seems essential so that the MAG does not lose 
the full extent of its role. This could be done in parallel with 
revising the MAG ToR. ToRs should make clear how the two bodies interact.

And thanks to Livia, Jorge and Paul for the very nice concept note.

Best regards

Flávio

> Dear Livia and Jorge:
>
> Thank you very much for this document.
> It’s very very helpful.
>
> To summarize:
>
> Option A - The MHLB is separate of the MAG but strongly linked to it. 
> It looks very well integrated.
>
> Option B - The MHLB is a kind of executive committee of a renovated 
> MAG that is now called MAG+.
>
>
> I can live with either option. While my first approach was very 
> similar to Option B, Option A is very well designed and a very good 
> compromise.
>
>
> A few comments:
>
> Option A -
>
> . While 25 members is smaller than 50, what is very good, i think that 
> the MHLB could be even smaller, around 15 people. The experience in 
> forming the MAG since its inception shows clearly that is very 
> challenging to accomplish ALL the balances in a small number of 
> people, but it can be fixed through the rotation of members. If at a 
> given time, the MHLB lacks of enough representation of a group or 
> region, that situation should be improved in the following rotation. 
> At the end of the day we have to trust in the members of the body.
>
>
> Option B -
>
> . It doesn’t say how large would be the leadership team (or executive 
> committee). It would be good to provide some idea to show that the 
> MHLB is really a subset of the MAG(+) and not 2/3 of it.
>
> . While one of the functions of the MHLB would be to provide advice to 
> the Tech Envoy, a better integration with the function of the Tech 
> Envoy would be desirable in my opinion. I feel that the connection 
> between the Tech envoy and the MHLB should be improved in this option.
>
>
>
> To both options:
>
> The third bullet point in the functions of the MHLB (as described in 
> para 93 of the roadmap), is
> "Relay proposed policy approaches and recommendations from the Forum 
> (i.e. prepared by policy networks, such as BPFs) to appropriate 
> normative and decision-making fora”
> That objective will not be achieved just creating a new body working 
> with the support of the same secretariat (even if it is strengthened). 
> It will require a lot of additional work. This is an issues we should 
> address after we could finish the discussion on other points.
> Best,
> Raúl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> El 26 ago. 2020, a las 03:04, Livia Walpen via WG-Strategy 
>> <wg-strategy at intgovforum.org <mailto:wg-strategy at intgovforum.org>> 
>> escribió:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>> I hope this message finds you well.Pursuant our last call of the 
>> MAG-WG on Strategy, Jorge and I have been working with Anriette and 
>> Titti on a draft concept note on how to implement the 
>> Multistakeholder High-Level Body (MHLB) from Para 93(a) of the UNSG’s 
>> Roadmap on Digital Cooperation. Thanks very much also for the 
>> feedback from those who had most actively participated in this 
>> discussion, whom we have approached informally over the last days.J
>> I have just uploaded the resulting draft here:
>> */Some ideas on how to operationalize the Multistakeholder High-Level 
>> Body outlined in §93 (a) of the UNSG Roadmap for Digital 
>> Cooperation:/*https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zk8D2ub1D9yY4y5mznDbGuqZPDdZi6NjlV38Jsv4FkI/edit?usp=sharing*//*
>> We have tried to factor in the discussions and ideas we have 
>> exchanged in this WG as well as in the Roundtable call on 27 July 
>> mostly in what is the consolidated and so-called Approach “A” in the 
>> draft:/operationalize 93(a) through a new body within the IGF, 
>> separate and complementary to the MAG./
>> //
>> In addition, the concept note contains an Approach 
>> “B”:/operationalize 93(a) through an in-depth reform of the 
>> MAG,/which is a text provided by Paul Blaker based also on ideas 
>> exchanged so far by other WG members.
>> We hope that this draft concept note can serve as a good basis for 
>> further discussions and we are looking forward to the call tomorrow.
>> Very best,
>> Livia & Jorge
>> _______________________________________________
>> WG-Strategy mailing list
>> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org <mailto:WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org>
>> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go 
>> tohttp://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WG-Strategy mailing list
> WG-Strategy at intgovforum.org
> To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org

-- 
Prof. Flávio Rech Wagner		

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul      flavio at inf.ufrgs.br
Instituto de Informática                       Fone: +55-51-3308 9494
Porto Alegre, Brasil                           http://www.inf.ufrgs.br/~flavio

President Internet Society Brazil
flavio at inf.ufrgs.br, info at isoc.org.br          Fone: +55-51-3308 9494
https://www.isoc.org.br                        Twitter: @ISOCBrasil
https://www.facebook.com/isocbrasil/           https://www.youtube.com/isocbrasil

Technical consultant to CGI.br and NIC.br

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-strategy_intgovforum.org/attachments/20200826/5164f215/attachment.htm>