[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 22:32 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto:
> Please see below.  Thanks to APC, I hope we can work with this.
> 
> I think there may be changes some of you might like to make, but it 
> is close to many of the ideas we have been discussing.
> 
> Looking forward to your comments,

I will drop any procedural arguments, for the sake of favouring
consensus.

>From a substantial point of view, I like most of the document: it is
very complete (and I even recognize some words of mine :-) ). It is,
however, more detailed than most we ever discussed, so I will have some
detailed points.

As a suggestion, there should be reference to that part of the WGIG
Forum mission that was worded as "embodiment of WSIS values in IG
processes", that is, checking whether all IG processes going on at
different institutions are in line with the WSIS values of transparency
etc, and make recommendations if they are not.

Now the requests for clarifications.

The first regards this part:

> * Constituting the membership
> 
> We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN:
> 
> 1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with:
> 
> a.  The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder 
> groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles)
> b.  The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise 
> required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD 
> definition of internet governance
> c.  Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist 
> in relation to economic development and access to the information 
> society, within countries and between countries

Why should there be membership criteria? We always drafted the Forum as
something where anyone, from a UN agency to an individual, could enter
the system and say, "I have an issue". WSIS-like accreditation criteria
can be acceptable if they are formal (i.e. to verify that
organizations / individuals exist and actually are who they say they
are), not if they are substantial and drafted to exclude anyone. What do
the authors envisage by this?

Also:

> 2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to:
> 
> a.  Governments
> b.  Business entities
> c.  The technical community
> d.  Academic and educational institutions
> e.  Civil society organisations
> f.  Community based organisations and grassroots communities
> g.  At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These 
> could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g. 
> subject matter affinity.

What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom?

Finally:

> Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a 
> Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team could 
> consist of eight members made up of two each from the three WSIS 
> sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and two from 
> the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet 
> development and management.  One of the two in each sector should be 
> from a developing country. The Team could have a one year 
> non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the 
> Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the 
> Tunis summit.

It is unclear whether this Team would disappear after one year, or a new
one would be appointed. Let's be sure (even if terms are non-renewable)
that we don't just appoint "a quick group just to start up the process",
and then it stays there forever.

Also, it is unclear who "the community of actors involved in technical
aspects of internet development and management" would be. Again, I think
we should stick to the tripartite multistakeholder model - otherwise
you'll just open a big can of worms.

And in general, eight members is not enough - I would see it very hard
for constituencies to agree on such a small number of nominations. And
this team would basically become the Emperor of the Forum, as it would
decide:

>   -  Drafting the member structure
>   -  Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum

so, basically, shape the forum as it likes. I think these decisions
should be taken in public consultations that the Team might facilitate,
and also, the Team might be used to call consensus, but it should not
take these decisions alone. I (and most people) liked Izumi's proposed
process for the formation of the Forum, could we stick to that?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance