[governance] Possible CS text on forum

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

I think the rewrite is pretty much ok.  I had no intention on  
engaging in emasculation, i just don't trust the governments and  
private sector to include civil society in any executive - especially  
if it is designated by the prepcom/wsis in its current mode.  Since  
section 5 seems to include Izumi's suggestion that the formation of  
any executive or steering group be done through through open and  
inclusive consultations, it is probably the best we an do at this point.

I think you can drop '(if necessary)' , since the words 'Any  
executive ..." are included and section 5 really indicates that the  
form of the forum should be discussed openly.

Also I am not sure we need to drop the mention of other organizations  
and fora. I would recommend including a line something like:

The new forum should be designed to work cooperatively with existing  
institutions and the best possible use should be made of research and  
work carried out by others

a.

On 24 okt 2005, at 08.36, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> 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