[governance] Possible CS text on forum

[Izumi AIZU]

First, thanks Vittorio for taking the good lead for the "Forum" part of our text.

I also think CS should push this Forum idea into practice, as one of the
first multi-stakeholder experiment, perhaps, on this level.

I see some need for some mechanism that sets up and operates this forum.
We cannot just rely on UN SG to select members and then they will fly.
At the same time, as Jeanette pointed out, top-down selected "executive
group" without defining its roles and compositions may lead into some danger.

It may be more helpful to think it as a process, similar to WGIG's formation:

First, a "light" secretariat will start to coordinate, making open consultation
rounds for a while, say 3 or 4 months, propose draft charter or blue-print
of the mission, working methods and composition of this Forum, including 
financial
and other logistics.

Second, another round of open consultation about this draft plan, listen and
then make final recommendation to UN SG (or any alternative). Another 3 or
4 months, at least, perhaps.

Then according to the consensus made through this consultation process,
the Forum will start its work.

Something like that. IN other words, until it starts, no one group
owns it, the process is open and the secretariat makes sure it is open,
and they do not make decisions by themselves.

It is a kind of "self-organizing" process. Am I optimistic? I tried to be
pragmatic.

izumi



At 00:09 05/10/21 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:


>Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> > Thanks a lot, Vittorio. Very nice first draft.
> >
> > One comment:
> >
> >>4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all
> >>stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and
> >>make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It
> >>should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by
> >>a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers
> >>in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing
> >>institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made
> >>of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised]
> >
> >
> > The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions
> > should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for
> > the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!"
> > Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just
> > kidding). Or am I missing something here?
>
>No, you don't. We have talked about this cross cutting issues several
>times before.
>I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I
>don't understand its function.
>
>jeanette
> >

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