[governance] Muti-stakeholder Group structure (some ideas)

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 1) On the composition :
> 
>     * it should be a single body : separating the constituencies would
>       be detrimental to fruitful interaction and lead to silo approaches
>       preventing consensus; a step backwards in the process;

My view is that practicality requires some degree of separation between 
them, because each of the stakeholder groups is accustomed to making 
decisions in quite different ways and it is going to take some time (and 
trust) before these will begin to converge.

>     * a fourth category covering "organizations" could be of interest,
>       allowing participation of actors like ITU, ICANN, W3C, IETF,
>       etc...This would actually be in line with para 29 of the TAIS that
>       says : "The international management of the Internet should be
>       multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full
>       involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and
>       international organizations."

In fact the Tunis Agenda is very confused on this, sometimes speaking of 
"international organizations", sometimes of "intergovernmental 
organisations", and sometimes even speaking of one when it is obviously 
intending to refer to the other or both.

On balance, the most consistent interpretation is that the Tunis Agenda 
identifies intergovernmental organisations as a fourth stakeholder, and 
excludes the Internet technical community as a separate stakeholder.

I agree with Milton that there are problems with this, particularly with 
treating governments and intergovernmental organisations separately, 
however we are asking for trouble if we are to argue against the words 
of the Tunis Agenda.

> As for the organizations mentioned as a fourth category, irrespective of 
> their competence on the substance, their expertise as conference and 
> events organizers could also be useful in preparing the annual 
> IGF meetings; the diversity of their working processes could also be 
> useful in future discussions on methodology (see for instance the W3C 
> process document).

Yes, and this is also really the only basis upon which I can justify to 
myself the separate involvement of intergovernmental organisations; ie. 
you can't really do international public policy governance without them.

> The important element is that multi-stakeholder groups are not and 
> cannot be decision-making bodies, let alone negociating structures on 
> behalf of a larger community. First of all because the non-membership 
> nature of the IGF (as reminded by Nitin Desai) is a natural obstacle;

Not really.  As long as all material interests are represented within 
the structure, there is no reason why it cannot make non-binding 
decisions thorough a consensual process.  This is the fallacy of Nitin's 
for which I have the least patience.

> secondly because they have a more useful role to play. Their main role 
> should be to facilitate processes, to help consensus emerge from 
> thorough discussions and to advise and support the secretariat in 
> formalizing zones of agreement among stakeholders.

The roles are distinct, yes, but not exclusive.  The WGIG report refers 
to them as "policy-setting" and "coordination".  Given that 
"policy-setting" sounds a bit scary, but you can use any less 
threatening synonym that you prefer, such as policy-shaping.  The 
distinction between the two is never black and white anyway.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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