[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure - Is WGIG a good model

[Parminder]

Hi All

 

Picking up from the debate on new processes and structures in and for the
IGF, I will like to note a few things.

 

First of all, a 3 or 4 component bureau seems to have little support, expect
for those who proposed it at the recent consultations (Louis and Francis).
Apart from them I see only Jeremy supporting such a structure (pl correct me
if I am wrong).

 

 However there seems to a good amount of dissatisfaction about the current
MAG based structure. And owing to this dissatisfaction a couple of proposals
for change in IGF structure have come up. The dissatisfaction is both in
terms of the process - the composition, and the process of constitution of
MAG, with its preponderance of technical community/ ICANN connected members
at the expense of civil society members - and the substance, in terms of IGF
not fulfilling all aspects its mandate. The latter probably requires, for
instance to fulfill its mandate of 'making recommendations', a different
structure. 

 

I think the suggestion for a 3/4 fold bureau seeks basically to address the
problem of proportionate representation, and clear and transparent processes
of constituting MAG or a similar body. Evidently this genuine problem can be
solved even with a combined MAG/ bureau, with the processes of its
constitution kept separate for the 3 stakeholder, and kept transparent.  

 

Another problem with a bureau is that it seems to be strictly a process
related body. Such is the WSIS model, and such is its role in Louis Pouzin's
proposal. This doesn't address one of the main problems that those
dissatisfied with the present MAG structure have - which relates to its
substantive outcome producing capabilities. 

 

All this make it clear that the typical WSIS like 3 fold bureau is not what
most people here really seek in their dis-satisfaction with MAG.  I myself
don't like the word 'bureau'.... It is not the specific term that we need to
be fixated on, as has been argued by some...It can be anything, lets call it
IGF committee or something. But the real point is - do the Tunis documents
with their multiple agenda for the IGF not imply a clearer structure than
the MAG - which, since it doesn't take decisions (to quote MAG member
Jeannette) it isnt clear what does it do. And, as explained recently by
Nitin during the consultations, if it is only to advise the SG, does it not
place too much reliance on personalities (which Jeannette also says is
dangerous). Brazil's proposal of a body that have a clearer legitimacy and
task of some substantive outcomes from IGF is therefore worth looking into. 

 

I wonder if it is not possible for IGF to move towards some kind of an IGF
'committee' (or some such thing, as someone pointed out we need to look for
linguistic innovations like did in the case of 'dynamic coalitions') modeled
on the WGIG which gave non-binding recommendations. In fact WGIG has been a
very significant multistakeholder global governance innovation, and had
great influence over Tunis documents, and thus over IG itself.. Its report
is a good instance of how a good and very useful document can be produced by
a very diverse group. Its putting together a lot of stuff which had lesser
amount of consensus into a 'background document' is also a significant
innovation. The 'IGF committee' can take up similar activity.

 

I am not sure why many civil society members who were so enthusiastic about
the WGIG, aren't agreeable for a standing WGIG kind of body within the IGF.
We could keep having strong multistakeholder influence over IG through such
a body in the IGF. This is the evolution from the MAG that many look
towards, and taking the discussion towards a WSIS kind of bureau - both by
its defenders, and its opponents - I think is an avoidable distraction. 

 

Parminder 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________

Parminder Jeet Singh

IT for Change, Bangalore

Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 

Tel: (+91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890

Fax: (+91-80) 4146 1055

www.ITforChange.net 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070608/1c176acf/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070608/1c176acf/attachment.txt>