[governance] Possible CS text on forum

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

(Apologies for being absent for the last week and for responding  
late.  Just starting to catch up)

On 20 okt 2005, at 16.58, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> ======
>
> 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

up to here I am fine with the proposal.

> and coordinated by
> a multi-stakeholder Executive Group,

As you can probably guess, and in agreement with some of the others  
who responded, I  am uncomfortable with just suggesting that there be  
an executive.  For one I don't think it is needed, for another I  
think forming it would be a nightmare.

I would prefer to see the forum just involve an enabling and  
organizing secretariat and maybe a part time group of analysts who  
crank out the reports.

> whose members would serve as peers
> in individual capacity.

Of course if there is a Executive, they should serve as peers.  but I  
still don't trust the governments, or the private sector for that  
matter, to be willing, or capable, of setting up an executive that  
function on a peering basis.  Whereas a well formed secretariat can  
be mandated to treat all as peers.

However from Vittorio on 22 Oct:

> No, I mean that the executive group should be inclusive and balanced,
> and this would ensure inclusiveness.

I just don't see this as happeing.  At the very least the chair would  
have to be from Government - they won't agree otherwise.  And a you  
know even the most well meaning government type occasionally finds it  
necessary to censure Civil Society.

> Without it, whenever some
> controversial discussion happens the Secretariat or Chair will  
> possibly
> give a private call to the most influential governmental  
> delegations and
> decide according to their opinion, basically ignoring all the others,
> including ourselves.

I tend to think that wwe could trust a secretariat that was given a  
mandate for even handedness more then we could ever trust governments  
or business.

>> 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]

I either endorse the recommendation that the first half of the  
sentence be dropped, or recommend that it be extended as follows:

Except in dealing with cases of cross cutting issues, overlap with  
existing institutions ...

>>
>> 5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to  
>> appoint an
>> initial Secretariat


>> and Executive Group

I would not like to see an executive group formed.  certainly not at  
this point.

I quite like Izumi's recommendation since it give a process oriented  
solution.

On 20 okt 2005, at 22.10, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> 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.



> so that the forum can be
> convened in 2006. [WGIG para 44 turned into practice]
>

a.

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