The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 27 August - 3 September, 2008. (Writer A) To have better understanding of where I stand, I visited to IGF MAG archive list as well as WSIS IGC list as one of incoming MAG members and record the number of email post of IGF MAG and of WSIS IGC. Hope you also discover these findings are useful for MAG to discuss IGF/MAG review down this road. The following quantitative data found from the mailing lists tells WSIS IGC has been more actievly engaged with the debate than MAG. We should probably ask ourselves why and how to improve our engagement down this road if that is what we want. Even though I did not classify the number of posts done by government sector of MAG and the number of posts done by non-governmental sector of MAG, it seems pretty "obvious" we do not have balanced inputs from our own group. Before getting into more in-depth debate on this critical issue, IGF Review, I would like to ask other colleagues whether there was clear protocol on how to transfer some of our debates to our own stakeholder group to facilitate debate and build consensus. I understand you do not forward some of our MAG mails directly to your own stakeholder groups. Could I? If you transfer the MAG message, you truncate names of author. Or any other practice? Is there any other protocols I should be aware of before I share information with WSIS IGC? Your clarification on this will be helpful. It would be also appreciated if you can share or suggest how we should facilitate MAG debates with the related stakeholders. I would like to learn from you as incoming MAG member. =========================================== The Number of Email Post from May 2006 - August 2006 =========================================== IGF MAG WSIS IGC May 2006 77 312 Jun. 2006 114 218 Jul. 2006 50 158 Aug. 2006 100 105 Sept. 2006 152 83 Oct. 2006 153 386 Nov. 2006 67 225 Dec. 2006 8 118 Jan. 2007 21 178 Feb. 2007 54 256 Mar. 2007 7 66 Apr. 2007 18 537 May 2007 33 484 Jun. 2007 39 277 Jul. 2007 25 170 Aug. 2007 44 87 Sept. 2007 112 164 Oct. 2007 164 313 Nov. 2007 136 742 Dec. 2007 40 262 Jan. 2008 39 139 Feb. 2008 54 650 Mar. 2008 65 450 Apr. 2008 52 513 May 2008 67 409 Jun. 2008 54 368 Jul. 2008 31 187 Aug. 2008 32 417 (as of Aug. 24) (Markus Kummer) Dear Writer A,?? Your email is timely, as I forgot to mention, for the benefit of new members, the one basic rule the MAG adheres to, that is the Chatham House Rule.?? As the Chatham House Web site states, the rule reads as follows:?? "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".?? More on the Chatham House Website:?? http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/chathamhouserule/?? We found that it fulfills its purpose and encourages openness and out of the box thinking.?? You may also have noted that the press release announcing the MAG renewal states that the MAG "has been asked to continue efforts to?enhance the transparency of the preparatory process by ensuring a continuous flow of information between its members and the various interested groups". It is indeed one of the main tasks of MAG members to serve as a link to a broader community and share the information they gain through their MAG membership.?? The only constraint in doing so is the respect of the Chatham House Rule. It is perfectly fine to tell your colleagues and friends that different views were held on this or on that point and that some felt A was better while others preferred B. However, it would not be acceptable to reveal who held what view.?? Since last February we have made available a weekly anonymized digest of our discussions in the Forum section on our Web site (we are lagging behind a bit with posting the digests, due to holidays). The section, admittedly, is not very visible and we aim to improve this. You are of course free to do the same.?? Lastly, your analysis of past exchanges tells you that non-government members are more active than government representatives. While this, on the whole, is correct, I would also like to point out that there are exceptions to this rule and, to confuse the statistics, I would like to add that the names of some MAG members who are non-government representatives have been put forward by governments. I suppose this is all part of multistakeholder cooperation.? (Writer A) Dear Markus, ?Your email is timely, as I forgot to mention, for the benefit of new members, the one basic rule the MAG adheres to, that is the Chatham House Rule. As the Chatham House Web site states, the rule reads as follows: [snip] Thank you for your clarification. I have seen some discussions on Chatham House Rule on the MAG list. But I have to let colleagues here know I am still foreign to the rules set by Chatham House in London so I still have to adjust myself to these new rules. Thank you for your confirmation. > Since last February we have made available a weekly anonymized digest of our discussions in the Forum section on our Web site (we > are lagging behind a bit with posting the digests, due to holidays). The section, admittedly, is not very visible and we aim to improve > this. You are of course free to do the same. This is very helpful! Thank you for your reference. Reading the digest is much easier than clicking each mail in the archive. As you noted the section is not quite visible on the site, indeed. So I am sharing the specific url for convenience of other colleauges. For Discussion Forum, http://intgovforum.org/forum/ For Digest http://intgovforum.org/forum/index.php?board=23.0 ?Lastly, your analysis of past exchanges tells you that non-government members are more active than government representatives. While this, on the whole, is correct, I would also like to point out that there are exceptions to this rule and, to confuse the statistics, I would like to add that the names of some MAG members who are non-government representatives have been put forward by governments. I suppose this is all part of multistakeholder cooperation. As you pointed out, the quantitative data should not represent or measure the participation of stakeholders without considering other factors. They were not counted into the data appropriately including the cases you are referring to. I look forward to working with MAG members from different sectors as well as civil society with a vew to implementing multistakeholder cooperation. (Markus Kummer) Dear Writer B, Writer C, colleagues,?? I am aware that I promised you an update on the state of play with regard to the preparation of the main session workshops some time ago. My apologies for the delay.?? Please find below the list of the actors who are involved in the preparation of these workshops.? ?In some case, the preparations are well advanced while in others the summer break in the northern hemisphere has taken its toll.?? There are bound to be some emissions and mistakes. Please let me know if you spot any and forgive me, if I put your name in the wrong slot.?? As a word of explanation: The term 'core team' refers to persons who were involved in the organization of workshops which are merging, whereas 'volunteers' indicates people who were not involved in the organization of a relevant workshop, but who volunteered to help putting together a main session workshop (or who I think are involved). (For the benefit of newcomers, the list below gives the affiliation of IGO representatives.)?? In answer to Writer C's question, I am all in favour of opening the MAG session or parts of it to those who are involved in the organization of a main session workshop, as much of our work will be devoted to this task.? (Writer D) Dear Markus, As the Ministry of External Relations is a co-sponsor of one of the workshops involved in the proposal for arrangements for Internet governance, I think I am rather a member of the core team than a volunteer. (Writer A) Dear Markus, ?Please find below the list of the actors who are involved in the preparation of these workshops. Thank you for putting this list together. I also classified how different stakeholder groups are engaged with organizing the main workshops for the sake of newcomers hoping this can be helpful. There could be some errors in identifying some members so please, feel free to corret the list, if necessary. I understand MAG has had previous debate of the ratio of different stakeholders in composing the MAG. From 50/50 debate to four different stakeholder groups instead of three etc. The following list is not associated with such debate but categorizing different groups is provideded for further discussion on how to make our initiative more multistakeholder cooperation. Access – Reaching the next Billion Lead: Karen Banks (APC) Core team: Willie Currie (APC), Anriette Esterhuysen (APC), Ian Thomson (PICISOC): Sulakshana Bhattacharya (CSDMS), Abi Jagun Volunteers: Ayesha Hassan, Adam Peake, Peter Hellmonds, Bill Graham CS Internet Governance Caucus (5: Karen, Willie, Anriette, Sulakshana, Adam) CS Internet Technical Community (2: Ian, Bill) Business (2: Ayesha, Peter) Note: Could not identify where Abi Jagun's stakeholder group. ?Multilingualism / Diversity?Lead: Patrik Fältström?Core team: Theresa Swinehart, Marco Obiso(ITU), Daniel Dardailler, Bill Graham CS Internet Technical Community (4: Patrik, Theresa, Daniel, Bill) Intergovernmental Organization (1: Marco) ?Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime??Lead: George Sadowsky?Core team: Bertrand de La Chapelle, George Sadowsky, Marco Obiso (ITU), Alexander Seger (CoE), Marilyn Cade CS Internet Technical Community (1: George) Government (1: Bertrand) Business (1: Marilyn) Intergovernmental Organization (2: Marco, Alexander) ? Fostering security, privacy and openness? Lead: Andrea Beccalli (UNESCO)? Core team: Lee Hibbard (CoE), Ralph Bendrath (TU Delft), Karen Banks (APC), John Carr (CHIS)? Volunteer: Bertrand de La Chapelle CS Internet Governance Caucus (3: Ralph, Karen, John) Government (1: Bertrand) Intergovernmental Organization (1: Andrea) ?? Transition from IPv4 to IPv6? Lead: Adiel Akplogan? Core team: Raùl Echberria,:Izumi Aizu, Bill Woodcock (PCH) . Milton Mueller (IGP)? Volunteers: Jeanette Hofmann CS Internet Governance Caucus (3: Izumi, Milton, Jeanette) CS Internet Technical Community (3: Adiel, Raul, Bill) ??Arrangements for Internet governance – global and national/regional?Lead: Bill Graham?Core team: Raùl Echeberria, Adiel Akplogan Bill Woodcock,?Volunteers: José Vitor Hansem, Adam Peake CS Internet Governance Caucus (1: Adam) CS Internet Technical Community (Bill G, Raul, Adiel, Bill W) Government (Jose) After observing the list, as one of newbies in this list, I wonder (1) whether there were previous efforts to recruit more diversified stakeholder groups in coordinating the main workshops and (2) whether the current MAG should make further efforts to recruit more diversified stakeholder groups. If the answer is YES, in line with such effort, I would like to volunteer myself in preparing for Multilingualism/Diversity as one of CS Internet Governance Caucus and Arrangement for Internet Governance - Global and National/Regional sessions. Both session seems to need contribution from other stakeholders including CS Internet Governance caucus. Hope this can be helpful to move forward. (Writer E) > I understand MAG has had previous debate of the ratio of different > stakeholders in composing the MAG. From 50/50 debate to four different > stakeholder groups instead of three etc. The following list is not > associated with such debate but categorizing different groups is > provideded for further discussion on how to make our initiative more > multistakeholder cooperation. One thing that has been recognized is that each individual can not be affiliated with a single organisation. Doing such 1:1 mappings is not making the discussion easier. This was also something pointed out by Markus in his mail. For example, I now and then point out that sure, I am active in the [EDITED] etc, but I am also employed by [EDITED] and active in the [EDITED] activities (Business) and am an appointed advisor to the [EDITED] IT Minister since 6 years back -- spending 50% of my time working very very close with the [EDITED]Government IT Policy Group. In fact, I spend more time with the [EDITED]Government nowadays than what I spend in the [EDITED]. So what category do I belong to? I claim more than one. And because of that, lists like the one you just created is I feel not correct. Specifically, we in the MAG have to work *together* and not push each other into corners in the room where we have our flags on the table etc. We should all move to the center of the room, and together resolve the issues we find. We are chosen in our individual capacity and all of us (I claim) have contacts well outside the "default" area of our expertise. We should use all of those networks and contacts and skills we have, and not polarize. (Writer F) Writer A: Just a correction about your clasiffication. The Internet Govenance Caucus is not a stakeholder group, so it is not in the same lavel than Governments or Business Sector. The IGC is just one component (an important one) of the Civil Society Organizations group. There could be many other expressions of CS. (Writer E) Writer F, thanks for being explicit. This is btw why I used the term "categories" and not "stakeholder group" when talking about where people "belong". (Writer A) Writer E, Thank you for your clarification. For your amusement, I used to work for [EDITED]. I was vice president of [EDITED] representing [EDITED] (Another Internet Technical Community) in the Non Commercial Domain Holders Constituency as names council on the DNSO/ICANN. I also served the WSIS CS bureau while I co-founded WSIS CS IGC etc... In 2007, I was appointed to[EDITED], government agency in [EDITED], as a special advisor. [EDITED] is responsible for [EDITED] registry and I closely work with them. So as you pointed out, many of us have so-called revolving identities, which is not an issue any more and indeed it is somewhat encouraged here in the multistakeholder cooperation. However, we do have at least have our own constituency when our name is presented to the MAG. I understand my name was put forwarded by [EDITED] for MAG members. I guess you also have similar process of your own group selection for the MAG, which I am not familiar with. I created the categories (or stakeholders) expecting we can realize we still need more outreach with some stakeholder groups here. In terms of CS stakeholder, I think we should build more consensus on who we are in the name of CS in a more constructive manner. I look forward to it! (Writer G) My warmest welcome to the new MAG members and my best wishes for those who worked with us before. Thanks Markus for the updated list of the main session workshops and also thanks to MAG collegues for the active exchange of ideas. If it is not too late I would like to voluteer myself for helping with the Access session and Arrangements for Internet Governance session. I agree with Writer C´s suggestion of opening he MAG session to those involved in the organization of the main sessions. Best regards and I hope to meet you in September. (Writer H) Writer A, As you may know, I too wear a number of hats while being a special adviser to the MAG. I've directed a program in the CS sector, I've been involve technically for many years, an I've worked for international organizations and governments. I support Writer E's view how the MAG should view its membership an how the membership can work together better precisely because members are NOT pigeon-hole into representing constituencies. I think the issue with what you say below, Writer A, is rooted in the notion that "we do have at least have our own constituency when our name is presented to the MAG." We may feel that we have our own constituency, but we participate as individuals in the work of the IGF. We do not represent our constituency, although we are expected to have a wide variety of contacts in one or more of them, and to have an understanding of the issues from those points of view. I believe that first of all, some constituencies are very loosely defined, and it is not possible to identify any group that represents them. For example, CS is much, much broader than the IGC, and the Internet technical community contains many thousands of people belonging to many organizations, no one of which would, I believe, claim to represent that community. Second, while names can be presented by anyone or by any group to the UN Secretary- General through the Secretariat, the choice of members that are ultimately made may have nothing at all to do with who or which group presented the persons for consideration. Indeed, some choices may be seen as more desirable precisely because a recommended member spans a number of constituencies and is not necessarily firmly identified with any one of them to the exclusion of any others. Markus, please correct me if I have made any misinterpretation of how members of the MAG are chosen. (Writer I) I agree with Writer E, and I want to add that we went through this before, I do not think we need to spend more time discussing this since we have more important issues to discuss before Hyderabad. (Writer J) I also agree. (Writer J) Dear Markus, Thank you for the updated list of the main session workshops. If I may, I would be happy to assist in any way possible for any of the following workshops: · Are we losing the battle against cyber-crime? · Fostering security, privacy and openness (Writer K) I endorse the view of Writers E, H and I....categorisation into 'stakeholder representation' is of no benefit to our processes for organising the meeting in India and is, in any event, an almost impossible task since many of us fit into at least 2 and often more such 'categories'. I also want to reiterate the point already made....we do not sit on the MAG to represent a specific group. (Writer L) I would also be happy to assist with Fostering security, privacy and openness (Writer M) Little correction related to my involvement: I am participating to the [EDITED] related discussions, since one of the workshop candidate for the merge was proposed by [EDITED]. (Writer F) Dear Writer N et al. Writer D has proposed to include also proposal "Bottom-Up Policymaking in the Regional Internet Registries to address IPv4 depletion and IPv6 transition" http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=21 in the list of proposals to be combined for this main workshop. This proposal is also being merged in the main workshop about IPv4-IPv6. I understand that Writer D is proposing to consider this proposal for both main workshops anyway. Am I right ? If yes, it seems an interesting proposal since it is close related to both issues. (Writer O) Dear Markus Thank you for your message. > > Arrangements for Internet governance ? global and national/regional > Lead: Bill Graham > Core team: Raùl Echeberria, Adiel Akplogan Bill Woodcock, > Volunteers: José Vitor Hansem, Adam Peake If I'm not too late, I would like to volunteer to assist with this session.