[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Anriette Esterhuysen]

Hallo Vitorio

Some clarification on what we tried to say in this section of our document.

> >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?

Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better.

Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a nomination 
process will contribute to:

- diversity
- relative representavity
- legitimacy
- transparency

In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS principles you 
mention above.

> 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?

Member of the forum.

> 
> 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.

Good point.  The idea was that the Forum Formation team would complete 
its work.  Then the membership criteria and procedures would replace the 
work of the Formation Team.  Consideration will have to be given to the 
length of terms of Forum membership and other conditions related to this.  
But we did not want to go into that much detail :)

> 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.

Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, and I 
suspect it will be quite shortlived.  

To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither 
government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic and results 
in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be processes in which 
all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate.
 
> 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

We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be  more effective.

> 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?

We certainly did have an inclusive way of working in mind... 

Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to hear 
more from them later.

Anriette



------------------------------------------------------
Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director
Association for Progressive Communications
anriette at apc.org
http://www.apc.org
PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109
Tel. 27 11 726 1692
Fax 27 11 726 1692

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