[governance] IGF Financing (and structuring)

[Meryem Marzouki]

Le 19 juin 07 à 02:08, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit :

> Meryem Marzouki wrote:
>> Substance (agenda setting, etc.) provided by contributions from  
>> anyone/any group/any institution interested. We only need some  
>> rules to organize all this and to guarantee that anyone/any group/ 
>> any institution has equal/equitable access to resources. Working  
>> on such rules would be far more interesting that discussing ways  
>> of structuring and financing IGF.
>> ===
>> To make my point clearer, why do we need a MAG or a bureau?
>
> It's a fair question.  Last year I advocated the use of a multi- 
> stakeholder nominations committee that would be open to anyone/any  
> group/any institution, and which would have the responsibility of  
> appointing the Advisory Group.  This would give the Advisory Group  
> more legitimacy than it presently has and thereby allow its mandate  
> to be expanded into other substantive areas that are currently  
> wanting of institutionalisation.

Not only this is, as you rightly mentions, complex and without  
guarantee, but also my question is not "how could we work towards an  
"enhanced" MAG". It is rather: "why would we even need a MAG or a  
bureau?".

What has done the MAG, up to now? BTW, maybe the MAG is not confirmed  
by UN SG till now because he's still waiting for a kind of activity  
and (self-)assessment report:)
And what could do a MAG (or a bureau or anything of this sort) that  
couldn't be achieved through:
- A secretariat, AND
- A well defined, discussed and agreed set of rules and criteria,  
i.e. terms of reference, AND
- A good interactive website: a sort of stock-exchange for workshops  
and other activities proposals, plus good vetting/voting system for  
agenda setting, decision-making for workshops, recommendations  
approving, etc.), which should be used by registered individuals/ 
groups/organizations/governments/whatever kind of participant.

Compared to the MAG achievements for more than one year now (!),  
doesn't this make sense?

Of course, this supposes that the IGF is actually a "new space for  
dialogue for all stakeholders on an equal footing on all Internet  
governance-related issues", as recommended by WGIG report, and this  
by no means contradicts IGF mandate as set out in the Tunis Agenda.

Since I'm not that naive, this proposal could at least work as a test  
for what is expected from the IGF (and the MAG, as simply a side  
effect), including by CS: a true multistakeholder dialogue or one of  
these well known beasts with new, a la mode, clothes.

Meryem____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance