The Civil Society (CS) and Internet Governance Forum
(IGF) are both part of the multistakeholder identity of the internet ecosystem.
The internet has always been idealized as the epitome of the human evolution.
Its use and values are transcended from the developed to the rest. Within this
transition there is a good gap of migration and adaptation values where still
today internet is idealized as a threat for the vulnerable. The overall concept
of Multistakeholderism came in action with the ideology of internet for all
concept. The value of creating a better and equal values harnessed the voice of
diversity, representation, inclusion, collaboration and trust. Thus, the
multistakeholder concept came into action highlighting the bottoms up approach
highlighting and focusing the unreachable and the developing world.
One after the other every year the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) opens
the various position for representation of different stakeholder from the
community. With the opening every year the fight for the nomination starts. It
is not just a fight of survival but a fight to have the place secured among the
powerful and prestigious. Though it has been clearly defined about the role and
responsibility of the MAG but every now and then during the MAG nomination
period a lot of waves are seen in the community. To be very precise the
politics of domination is seen in the name of representation of different
stakeholder. The process is called a bottom up approach but very reluctantly
manages its representation. To be precise it’s apolitical process that deems to
redeem its existence in the name of bottom up approach.
According to IGF website, “The MAG is comprised of 55 Members from
governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives
from the academic and technical communities.
It is clearly mentioned in the criteria of the MAG members that Developing and
least developing countries representative will be given a priority for
selection.”
But every year different group of people are selected with the priority of the
group selection process. What goes on is a mystery where from past few years I
have been monitoring and noticing the Civil society Group. I am not complaining
but the representative is selected based on organization and support.
Disclaimer I may be wrong, but this has been happening since past few years, so
I am kind of use to the trend and tendency of the MAG nomination especially in
the Civil society group.
I think civil society is such a group that has more responsibility and
complexity in terms of work and responsibility. As the group extends and
crosscuts various field and has a wide range of objective and roles. This
process must be open, transparent and accountable regardless of what the
selection process are.
This year After the MAG announcement a new ripple was seen in the so-called
Civil society group.
I have been witnessing the chaos going on from past few months and I am
surprised that every year when the MAG nominations come up the group or civil society
kind of revives. It is like the politics and revival process starts with people
working their way in. Some are seen
arguing about the new nomination on the email list or some are seen raising
question behind the scene but most importantly what is interesting is the chaos
that goes around. Multiple layers of politics swirls around. From one end of
the Europe to Africa to Asia things kind of buzz the G(Governance)and
the M(Multistakeholder)word which stays death for past 10 months
and suddenly it’s there.
This year things were different like every year; it
didn’t start with the buzz in-fact it started with the revival of a civil
society group. The terms and modality were clear this year as the MAG chair was
outgoing, so it had to be replaced. This vested interest created a ripple in
the internet ecosystem to have a nomination from the CIVIL SOCIETY group. Now
the problem was there were very limited group in Civil society that can
identify as a core group of IG and civil society.
So, there is a greater responsibility of the civil society group to coordinate.
This needs to be done in democratic way with proper values of transparency
and accountability in selecting the person and process. With this the revival if the Internet
Governance Caucus (IGC) certainly questions its identity for past few months
where it was completely dead. According
to its coordinator they were working behind the scene to work to collaborate
and merge with another civil society group BEST BIT.
The main question that comes here is why we all are beating the bush. The civil society process needs to be clear about the selection process in the most transparent and accountable way. The revival of ICG or merger is not a question, but the LEADERSHIP is. The future of civil society group does not lie with specific group of people, it is the value of how we will adapt and migrate to the unheard voices, group and stakeholders.
If with such chaos and lack of credibility if we revive or represented the civil society group, it will always be lacking the democratic values. The difference in between mutual understanding and having election is a small thing but the process is what is IMPORTANT.
If anything done wrong in the right process, it can be corrected with proper values but anything done with the wrong process starts a new trend of manipulation, power and politics
Just my two-cent comment from a least developed country.
Shreedeep Rayamajhi
