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