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

[Bertrand de La Chapelle]

Dear all,

As several remarks have mentioned, the key issue is not so much bureau or
not bureau (ie the name itself ) but the composition of any truly
multi-stakeholder group and its role. Some common sense elements could be
taken into account in the discussion :

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;
   - three categories of actors come naturally to mind : governments,
   civil society and business sector; and the corresponding members of the
   group should ideally be designated by their respective constituencies;
   - 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."
   - an equal number for each of the four groups is a rather natural
   balance; appropriate justifications would be needed for any other
   proportions;
   - there is an interest in maintaining a small overall number of
   members to allow good interaction : based upon experience, a maximum of
   about 40 members seems a reasonable amount;
   - as for governments, a minimum of five is necessary to allow
   traditional geographical diversity; but more than 10 would explode the
   number of members if the 1 to 4 ratio is applied;
   - previous, current and future host countries on a given year could be
   given some special rights, either as natural representative for their own
   region or in addition to a group of five for instance;
   - as for civil society, and in spite of all its limitations :-), the
   Internet Governance Caucus seems like the only sufficiently legitimate,
   diverse and structured group (ie with explicit procedures) to be able to
   designate MAG members.

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).

2) On the role of multi-stakeholder groups

In general terms, the above generic mechanism could be used for a diversity
of functions and various groups could be formed in the future according to
this formula, with variable sizes.

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; 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.

One of the main objection to using the term "bureau" is related to the above
: it evokes too much the decision-making groups in traditional
intergovernmental institutions. Like with the emergence of terms like
"dynamic coalitions", participants in the IGF have a common interest in
finding innovative terminology that allows to get everybody's mind out of
their respective boxes.

Hope it helps steer the discussion in a fruitful direction, useful for all.

Best

Bertrand


-- 
____________________
Bertrand de La Chapelle

Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32

"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint
Exupéry
("there is no better mission for humans than uniting humans")
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070531/922a66f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: message-footer.txt
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20070531/922a66f1/attachment.txt>