[governance] Consensus on the forum issue
Jeanette Hofmann
jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Thu Sep 22 04:02:34 EDT 2005
Hi,
although many of the active caucus members are here, there are
obviously problems to meet. We have had two caucus meetings so far, both
of them had lots of new attendees. While it is very good that other
caucuses become interested in our work, it turns out to be difficult to
discuss contested issues such as the forum. The fact that only a few
WGIG members find the time to attend the caucus meetings doesn't exactly
help.
Having said that, I think we need to make an effort to clarify a number
of things:
1. How far does consensus reach with regard to the forum?
2. What exactly do we disagree about?
3. How can we bypass this conflict?
As far as I understand nobody opposes the idea of a forum in principle.
Nobody supports the position of the business sector, which doesn't even
recognize the need for a venue where Internet related issues can be
discussed.
What is more, we seem to agree that the forum should be open to anyone
and composed in a multi stakeholder manner.
From what I understand we disagree about the functions and the authority
of such a forum. Some people think it should have only soft power
without any decision making power. Others think we need a body that can
make binding decisions.
Another bone of contention might concern the so-called oversight
function. Some people think this issue should be treated seperately from
the forum, others think the role of the forum is related to that function.
I would like to know if this is a correct description of our controversy?
If so, I would like to suggest a possible compromise between these two
differing views.
The civil society statement has language to the effect that the forum
can make decisions if all participating statekholders agree with this.
(Former versions of Bill's statement included this clause. I think it
only disappeared for the sake of brevity.) In other words, any extention
of the forum's authority would have to be consensus-based and bottom up.
The second common element I see has been pointed out by Avri. In her
view, the forum has to earn its authority. It can only gain political
authority if it is regarded useful by those who participante in the forum.
Decision making authority for the forum would thus depend on two related
if's: consensus among the participants and legitimate outcomes. This
implies that the forum may grow over time. It would start in a very
modest way with nothing but advisory functions but its authority could
increase over time depending on its productivity and legitimacy.
What do people think? Can we find a consensus along these lines?
Jeanette
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list