[governance] Caucus process comment

[Jeanette Hofmann]

I do agree with Victorio's suggestion of non-binding recommendations as 
a potential output of such forum. The forum has a better chance to be 
taken seriously if produces something.

I also agree that the forum should be dealt with independently from the 
WSIS follow up process. On the other hand, I wonder if considerations 
regarding the forum's structure wouldn't benefit from some form of 
organizational model or predecessor. Couldn't we take a process like the 
UN ICT TF as a starting point that helps us specify in practical terms 
what the new forum could look like?

Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should not 
assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to come 
up with their own resources. Other people thought the forum should be 
able to commission research projects and build up competence similar to 
what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
determines what such a forum can do.
jeanette


Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> 
>>It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
>>structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
>>There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
>>we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
>>might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
>>defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
>>advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 
> 
> 
> The first couple of "wrong turns" I would see (as I pointed out 
> previously) are:
> 
> - this forum is melted into or associated with the broader WSIS 
> follow-up / Global Alliance / UN ICT TF evolution
> 
> - this forum is not given any clear organizational structure and 
> decision making process
> 
> I think we should strongly and clearly advocate against these two 
> possibilities.
> 
> About ideas for its practical structure, I think that the forum should 
> have a multi-stakeholder WGIG-like coordination/steering group, and the 
> ability to support bottom-up working groups based on rough consensus, in 
> the IETF style.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance