[governance] Possible CS text on forum

[Vittorio Bertola]

Il giorno dom, 23-10-2005 alle 16:10 -0400, Avri Doria ha scritto:
> > 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.

I think that we have a fundamental difference of views here. You and
Jeanette seem to think that this forum would only produce meetings and
reports, and thus no formalized decision making procedure is necessary.
I, Bill and Adam (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to think that, as there
will be the need for some meaningful decisions to be taken, a
coordinating group is likely to be established in any case and so we'd
better have some proposals ready for it.

I also think that the absence of clear decision making procedures would
lead to an "emasculated" forum (to use Bill's term) that would be unable
to have an impact, and while this is an outcome that perhaps would
please the USG and the private sector, I think it would be a disaster
for us. We need a place where to start raising on a global scale issues
such as privacy protection and freedom of expression.

Finally, I disagree that a Secretariat (that usually operates by
bilateral consultations) can be more even handed towards civil society
than any well defined and public decision making procedure. I don't
think that all Secretariats in the UN are like the WGIG Secretariat, and
we can't depend on the good will of someone we don't get to choose.

In any case, I think we need to find some middle ground, and so I tried
to redraft the paragraph as an hypothetical; it would make our proposal
a bit weird (Heads of State should know what they want, not say "if you
do this, then do it this way") but I'm fine with it if it can help
reaching consensus (added text in capital letters):

"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 HAVE
TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO
ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP (IF NECESSARY)
SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO [deleted: and
coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members] would
serve as peers in individual capacity. [deleted: 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.]"

Also, I've tried to redraft para 5 according to Izumi's process idea,
which seems to make everyone happy:

"5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint an 
initial Secretariat TO HOLD PUBLIC MULTI-STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS,
SIMILAR TO THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS OF THE WGIG PROCESS, TO DISCUSS AND
REACH CONSENSUS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORUM,
[deleted: and Executive Group] so that the forum can be convened in
2006."

Again, I'm not sure that we will be better placed without having Annan
appointing a multi-stakeholder group as the next step: I see the risk
that Annan tells Utsumi "please organize the forum" and we're left with
whatever the ITU decides about our participation.

Do you really really think that you like this scenario more than the one
in which we call for the appointment of a multi-stakeholder executive
group to manage the rest of the process?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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