ISOC 2nd statement (on the advisory group)

Here is what was said later during the day.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. ISOC has a few recommendations concerning the renewal of the Internet governance Multistakeholder Advisory Group. The first of those is to stress the importance of appointing the new advisory group early so that work can begin in preparation for the next session. This has been a problem in past, and it’s something that really needs to be regularized and addressed, we believe. Related to that, we think that it’s very clear that the Advisory Group’s work must be continuous. For example, through the sessions this week and going forward until a new Advisory Group is appointed. And therefore, we would recommend that there be a recognition that the Advisory Group continues to function until a new one is in place. Secondly, we would like to stress the importance of appointing Advisory Group members as individuals rather than as representatives of any specific organization. We are recognize that in reality, the members of the group have been appointed in a way so as to ensure the voices of all relevant stakeholders are heard, and with respect to balance on a whole range of grounds that everyone here is familiar with. But we feel that the individual responsibility that has resulted from the Secretary-General’s method of appointment so far has really contributed to the caliber and amount of work that the people have put into it. Like other speakers, ISOC would support rotation of about one-third of the Advisory Group members each year, and we think that the current size of about 40 members is about right. The gradual rotation in the group should certainly be used to address the balance of stakeholders in the groups, which we believe now leans a little too heavily towards government membership. We would like to make the point that past and present Advisory Group members drawn from the technical community have made vital contributions to both the Advisory Group decisions and the overall shape of the forum itself. For that reason, we believe it’s essential that the expertise of the technical community continue to be a major component when selecting members of the Advisory Group Whether the individuals themselves come from the business community, the civil society community, academia, or government. Finally, various proposals have been put forward in writing for a nomination process. ISOC thinks that a number of groups and individuals should be able to submit nomination for Advisory Group membership, but they should not be able to restrict or in any way interfere with the choice of Advisory Group members. That choice must remain the final authority of the United Nations Secretary-General, giving the Secretary-General the ability to ensure the best possible balance among the stakeholders, regions, and so forth in the membership. Finally, I think we have made it clear that we feel that Advisory Group members should be chosen on the basis not of who they represent but of the size of community they connect to. This is a subtle but really relevant difference, and something that affects very strongly the openness and the consultative nature of the Advisory Group. We would also recommend, I guess, just to add a final point, that maintaining a consistent single chair of the Advisory Group has been very valuable and should be continued. We would recommend that in 2008, the Secretary-General appoint Chair for the remainder of the five-year mandate of the Internet Governance Forum, and we would strongly support, if possible, the appointment of the current Chair who has performed admirably in that role for the first two Advisory Group mandates and who has won the respect and loyalty of all stakeholders. Thank you.