[governance] Forum Function: statement read and support

[karen banks]

dear all

We had an opportunity to input on the forum function this morning in 
sub-committee - with insufficient time to prepare/consult.

Avri and jeanette drafted a statement based on the CS response to the WGIG 
report and comments posted in the governance list this past week, but there 
were some changes based on based on a discussion this morning based on:

- UN secretary general initiating the free standing organisation
- toning down on the language about treaties

As we clearly don't have consensus on this, but had to make the most of the 
opportunity, the statement was read by adam, submitted by GLOCOM, but not 
on behalf of the caucus.

We will need to discuss this at the meeting this afternoon 2.30 - room 
e3056/58 to see if there is broader support for the statement

the text follows..

karen, avri, jeanette

Adam Peake, GLOCOM, Sub-Committee A, 10:00-1300 session, Sep 27

We also recognize that while some policy issues are dealt with in the 
existing institutional structure there is a lack of space in particular for 
cross cutting issues. There is no global-mulit-stakeholder forum to address 
Internet-related public policy issues.

We recommend the UN SG to initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva 
principles for significant multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend 
that the forum not be anchored in any existing specialized international 
organization, but rather be organized as a legally free-standing entity 
Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum 
as peers.

We recommend that the forum provides the following functions:

a.      inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for 
peer-level interaction.

b.     comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with 
an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform 
individual and collective institutional improvements

c.     assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all 
Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, 
accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such 
as the WSIS principles;

d.     identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance 
mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly 
within the scope of any existing body;

e.     efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing 
bodies

f.      provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization 
to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity 
building;

g.     release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other 
documents on the various Internet governance issues.

We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical 
attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders 
(developing countries, civil society organizations, individuals) are 
proactively supported. We recommend the forum have clear organization and 
decision-making procedures. It is also important that the structure that 
will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results.

The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like 
treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all 
stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum 
could request an appropriate international organization to negotiate such 
instruments. The forum focuses on the development of soft law instruments 
such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc.

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