[governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs

[William Drake]

Hi,

I'm slammed with an extended period of travels and other stuff that make
participating on all the topics here difficult, but I would like to
comment on the forum discussion.  I'm just back from Wolfgang's ICANN
Studienkreis meeting in Brussels, which was quite good.  While there I
spent a lot of time talking with Nitan and some also with the EU folks
regarding the forum.  My sense remains that at the political level of
principle, this is a done deal. It was always the only logical outcome
regarding institutional reform.  However, apparently there has not been
much discussion of how exactly to make it happen, most notably because
everyone is preoccupied by the fight over oversight.  The details surely
will not be worked out before Tunis; there will be a call, probably again
to the SG, to set up a group to devise a concrete plan for consideration
by the General Assembly in the spring.  The risk is that this group may
not be fully inclusive, in which case the idea could get twisted away from
our original proposal.

In light of my tooth grinding on this concern, Martin Boyle of the UK (EU
presidency) asked me to write a text laying out a vision of the forum,
which he said he would then share with all EU governments and other
parties. Nitan agreed that at the UN level, such a document would probably
be most welcome.

It would be far better if the caucus were to provide a collectively agreed
input.  Since the governments don't seem to have the juice to work through
a plan, something serious from CS could go a ways toward pre-configuring
the range of options and avoiding any slippage in the wrong direction.  I
would suggest that we think about a two-part contribution: 1) suggested
wording of the text that to be included in chapter 3, couple of
paragraphs, stating the broad parameters and calling on the SG to set up a
design group; and 2) a more extended doc, perhaps 3-5 pages, that details
some design parameters in light of which the chapter 3 piece would be
read.

In doing 2), I would think that the WGIG and previously agreed caucus text
(from the reply to the WGIG report)---which have much in common, not by
accident---provide a decent starting point, and that we don't need to
reinvent our own wheel.  Easier to add and flesh out than start over.

Collaborative drafting and tweaking on the list will be difficult as
always, it's hard to keep track of threads on a range of different points
and judge when consensus has been reached.  Isn't it possible for someone
(Milton? Adam?) to put up a text on a website and aggregate focused
responses on each provision, in the same manner that we did with the WGIG
questionnaire?  I don't know whether CPSR would have the bandwidth to
manage this at this time, we're doing a big org reinvention debate and
strategic plan process over the next few weeks, but could look into it if
nobody else can manage.  In the event that there is not full consensus on
every point, we might want to have a sign on option for individuals and
organizations.

On substance, just a few quick points responding to previous threads:

*Veni's statement that representatives from existing orgs should not be
allowed to participate in the forum is a complete non-starter.  This could
never be agreed and would anyway preclude any hope that the thing fosters
a measure of mutual adjustment toward greater coordination, per WGIG.

*As Jeanette noted, we have already discussed at length the notion that
the forum should not address issues "covered elsewhere" and specifically
rejected it in our agreed text responding to the WGIG report.

*I understand the objections to Vittorio's Executive Group, but suspect
that something like this would have to be established in any event, so
it's better that we have some agreement bounding its mandate and
operation.  Collective action requires a K group.

*One point from the EU proposal, on which they are very firm, and to which
we've spoken before, should probably be repeated explicitly, namely that
the forum would NOT do oversight and hence sense as a dysfunctional
backdoor substitute for the Council idea.

*On Michael's question about the relation to other proposed new
mechanisms: There will not be a  Commission for the Information Society to
coordinate WSIS follow up and implementation.  The Global Alliance is
proceeding down its own track and seems to have a 60% chance of happening
under DESA auspices, without US support.  It would be very helpful (and
much appreciated in New York) if we were to explicitly state that the GA
and the Forum are viewed as very different and non-overlapping animals;
the forum does governance, the GA does ICT4D, which could mean, e.g.,
telecenters in Peru, distance ed in Togo, and so on...clearly different. 
There was a lot of unhelpful angst when GA people were imagining that the
Forum was intended to undercut the GA, or that governments would in any
event say well we can't create two new processes.  Whether the GA stands
or falls, it should do so on its own, without being polluted by gaming vis
the Forum, and I'd suggest we underscore that.

Anyway: we have a direct avenue now to influence the discussion.  The EU
wants to hear what CS thinks.  Could we perhaps start with our prior text
on a website and go through the existing and proposed provisions and try
to get them something in say two weeks?

Best,

Bill







> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:49 AM
> To: Jeanette Hofmann
> Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> Subject: Re: [governance] Possible CS text on forum
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> >> I'm not sure whether that's the best possible idea, however I am much
> >> more afraid of a process that does *not* have a clearly defined
> >> executive group, with guarantees of inclusiveness and
> >> "multistakeholderness".
> >
> > You mean, it would be the job of the executive group to guarantee such
> > things as inclusiveness? Please, Vittorio, this sounds like
> ALAC's ideas
> > in its formative stages. We don't need to repeat that, do we?
>
> No, I mean that the executive group should be inclusive and balanced,
> and this would ensure inclusiveness. 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.
>
> >> - everyone talks and then the Secretariat decides what the
> consensus is;
> >
> > Your executive body wouldn't have the authority either to "decide what
> > consensus is". In my view, the forum is not primarily a decision making
> > body. If we really want to make it open and inclusive, the focus will be
> > rather on coordination than decision making.
>
> Let's make it practical.
>
> Let's say that, as we do, we complain that there are no global policies
> to ensure privacy. Maybe let's even focus on a specific case: let's say
> that we want to develop a global policy to ensure privacy protection in
> the usage of Web cookies (independently from whether that policy would
> be binding, non binding, suggested, recommended, voluntarily adopted, a
> collection of best practices, or whatever else).
>
> First of all, the Forum will have to decide whether such point is
> actually added to the agenda, or not; whether there will be a 4 hour
> session in the morning, or a 5 minutes discussion when everyone already
> left; whether there will be, say, an online consultation or working
> group; who would coordinate such working group (and you know how
> influential a Chair can be on results); etc.
>
> Then the discussion happens, everyone states the views, and if things go
> well, all points are discussed and agreed in the room; but what if there
> is no agreement? While I don't think that there should be votes
> (consensus should be the guiding principle), how would you determine if
> the final document is at least acceptable to all? What if the Chair or
> the Secretariat sneak some text in that we really don't like, and then
> say "oh, that was consensus"?
>
> I think that having clearly defined decision-making procedures is a must
> to defend the weakest and least influential participants in the process,
> that means us.
>
> By the way, even the IETF (I think we can take the IETF as our sample of
> Internet-age consensus making processes that we love, right?) has clear
> procedures and a steering group. The W3C has clear procedures and voting
> rules to manage consensus(*). I'm not saying that the executive group is
> the only idea or the best possible one, and actually I would imagine
> that consensus is decided inside each individual working group, while
> the EG only acts as process manager, "check and balance" and final
> verification of the working group results (like the IESG). I
> particularly share your point about not letting everyone else feel like
> seated in the backseat. But in any case, you can't skip the issue of how
> to take decisions.
>
> (*) http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus
>
> By the way:
>
> > The forum cannot make binding decisions anyway.
>
> Are you sure? I agree that it should not, but we don't know yet what
> will be agreed in Tunis. Just imagine, for example, if they agree on
> building the Forum as a continuation of the series of PrepComs.
>
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----


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