[governance] APC - Forum draft?

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Hi Anriette,
 The following comment troubles me.
 On 11/10/05, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> The intention was that a public nomination process could achieve this. It
> could
> have more time and cast its net even wider than the WGIG did. So, it is
> intended
> to be inclusive. *How many members were there in the WGIG*? I would think
> the
> Forum could be of a similar size. The idea was that a smaller group would
> coordinate the process.

 When you ask the number of memebers of the WGIG, I am afraid we are mixing
two things here : the Forum and the Team
 In my view the Forum is not a Body (ie a group of people) but a Space for
participatory deliberation. An the limited group - if any - can only be a
facilitation Group, a Team of dedicated people whose function is to help
organize consultations and not to conduct them among themselves. A super
secretariat, at the service of the Community and not a supervising or expert
body of representatives. A Team under the Forum to support it rather than
above, to supervise it. This does not mean its members cannot have influence
(anybody thinking that Markus did not have influence on the WGIG is
mistaken) but they are not decision - takers : the iterative consultation
process is.
 So the question of size of the Forum cannot be put in the terms you
mention, drawing an analogy with the WGIG. Everybody knows I fully supported
the WGIG and still consider it the msot advanced multi-stakeholder format
attempted so far in the UN system (and got flamed enough for that :-).
 But I immediately mentionned after the WGIG report, that the group, because
of the traditional practice of the governments, the exploratory nature of
its working methods and its deadlines, became more an expert group (ieven f
formed in a more inclusive manner than usual), than the facilitation group
for a broader debate that could have been expected.
 In the present case, :
- the Forum as a general space space should be open to anyone interested (on
an individual basis), particularly through the form of a general mailing
list (think the WSIS Plenary list, or better the IG Caucus list, if we take
an analogy with civil society in WSIS); there are also physical meetings on
specific occasions where everybody can be present and speak his/her mind
out, like we did in the Prepcoms
- on specific themes, at the initiative of one or several individuals
(specific rules must be established), Interest Groups can form, with their
own governance guidelines (transparent conditions for participation,
objectives, publicity of discussion ....), like the various caucuses that
have emerged; the right of initiative can be bound by certain processes and
criteria, but affirming the principle is essential to open up the
agenda-setting capacity
- when appropriate, specific Working Groups can be formed, for a determined
period of time, by one interest group or a combination of several, to
accompllish a given task (drafting, managing a project, ....) ; this is what
was done in particular for the WG on Working Methods or the Follow-up WG to
respond to the structuration of the governmental discussions
- each working group should follow clear working methods that can be
different from another group but must share common features to guarantee
interoperability and coherence between their activities; coordination or
contact groups between different WG addressing overlapping issues ;
- the result of the Working Groups or drafting group should be circulated in
an iterative process for validation through the concentric circles in order
to obtain - hopefully - at least rough consensus among the braod community
participating in the Forum.
 This is the way a bottom-up process can function; the only way it can,
IMHO, be truly effieicnt *and* multi-stakeholder. The creation of limited
sub-sets of the community (ie small groups) should only be justified :
- either in the cases above, including smaller drafting groups, through the
application of clear rules for their formation
- or in the setting up of a Team of facilitatiors
 In this context, the UN ICT Task Force is an interesting case to examine
here :
- the Forum should certainly not be a limited group like the initial
formation of the UN ICT TF : very high level people meeting twice a year
when they can find a space in their overbooked agendas
- but the Team could be closer to what the UN ICT TF and its secretariat
finally bcame when they organized Open Fora on a given issue or initiated
discussions on the concept of a Global Alliance. Only the Team should be
more on at the operational level to allow full time involvement in
facilitation.
 The whole mechanism needs to be explored further and I do not want to
reduce the merit of APC's paper. But it is necessary to clarify this point
very soon. I have tried to outline the elements of the debate. hope I have
succeeded.
 Best
 Bertrand
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051110/4291d917/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance