[governance] Bureau

[William Drake]

Hi,

I agree with Adam and Karen that a bureau is a risky idea that CS shouldn¹t
embrace.   But I don¹t think anyone¹s really addressed Milton¹s question
about why there is a logical linkage between creating a bureau and control
by governments.  Leaving aside our bad experience with this structure during
WSIS, which would seem to support the point, a few concerns might be:

1.  It formalizes separated processes in which each of the four groupings
has its own consultations, comes to consensus, and then enters into some
sort of dialogue with counterparts.  The positions that result from those
inward focused processes could be more fixed and allow less room for post
hoc persuasion or revision.  Once governments work something out amongst
themselves, they might be loathe to abandon or revise it; we could end up
with hardened bargaining positions and WSIS-plenary style dynamics.  In
contrast, mixing people together in one group as equals can make things more
fluid and flexible, particularly when the logic of statements must be
explained to skeptics from other species.  Compare the plenaries with the
WGIG and you see how the flow is different.

2.  In the UN, their meaning seems to carry the intersubjective
understandings of diplomats and secretariats based on historical experience
in other settings.  They seem to understand bureaus as something done in
processes that are in the first instance intergovernmental, with non-state
actors as sort of invited guests that don¹t have the same standing when push
comes to shove and decisions must be taken.  It¹s perhaps telling who¹s
advocated a bureau---e.g. China and other developing country governments
that have consistently favored greater government control---and who has
discouraged the idea, e.g. people like Nitin who are trying to preserve the
multistakeholder orientation, and the notion that the Internet space is
qualitatively different and requires non-standard models.

3.  There¹s a UN process for constituting bureaus according to regions etc,
but as Nitin has pointed out, there¹s no ³membership² in the IGF upon which
to base such a structure.  At a minimum, to constitute a ³representative²
bureau we would be expected to formalize some sort of hierarchical peak
association that has the support of the relevant polity.  This didn¹t work
in WSIS and probably wouldn¹t here, given the fluidity and diversity of CS
opinion on IG.  Meanwhile it presumably would institutionalize similar
structures in other stakeholder groupings.

Unless there were sufficient assurances on these and other conceivable
points, it seems a risky road to go down.  The governments know what this
means to them, but we don¹t have the experience to interpret it or probably
the organizational savvy and firepower to fight off bad designs.

That said, I certainly agree with Karen that the existing mAG structure is
far from ideal and needs reform.  We agreed language on this drafted by
Vittorio for the February statement (which, unless I¹m blind, is not on the
IGF website www.intgovforum.org/contributions_Feb_2007_cons.htm) and think
it still applies (was the below the final text?)

About the Advisory Group, while supporting the concept, we note that its
composition, including
the proportionate representation of stakeholder groups and the cross-cutting
technical and academic
communities, was not openly and transparently discussed prior to its
appointment; nor there is any
transparency or clear norm on its terms, mandate and working principles. We
think that clear terms
and rules should be established for the Advisory Group between now and Rio,
through an open
process involving all the participants in the IGF, as a shared foundation
for our common work. We
further consider that if these rules and the quotas for representation from
each stakeholder group
were openly established, it would be possible for the Secretary General to
delegate the actual
process of selection of Advisory Group members to the stakeholder groups
themselves.

Best,

Bill


***********************************************************
William J. Drake  drake at hei.unige.ch
Director, Project on the Information
  Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO
  Graduate Institute for International Studies
  Geneva, Switzerland
http://hei.unige.ch/psio/researchprojects/Drake.html
***********************************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070521/b258bc57/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070521/b258bc57/attachment.txt>