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

[mgurst at vcn.bc.ca]

At the risk of re-hashing old discussions and with thanks to Bertrand for
presenting the matter with typical clarity let me raise what I consider to
be crucial if not fatal caveats concerning at least one of the "common
sense" elements presented below.

As we all know the precise status and thus significance of the IGF and the
overall IG set of activities is still unclear (not fully formed etc.etc.)
That being said, issues such as representation, accountability,
inclusiveness and so on (r., a., i.) might arguably be deferred to future
consideration or as seems in the context here left to some (mystical?)
form of emergence, or as Bertrand suggests it doesn't matter because...the
group isn't making decisions rather it is facilitating processes towards
decisions  , and "formalizing zones of agreement among stakeholders" --
which I think takes us back up to the issue of categories of stakeholders,
n'est ce pas... i.e. those who are in a position to articulate and thus
form agreements around zones of agreement!

Anyway, a lot (and seemingly an increasing number) of serious people and
players are taking the IGF increasingly seriously so leaving issues such
as r., a., i. etc. to be worked out in the future is, to my mind at least,
not good enough.

And specifically let me refer to "common sense" item (3) below i.e.
"categories of actors" namely "governments, civil society and business
sector".  As with others I don't have a real problem with either the
government category (they know who they are and have no problem in
figuring out their internal issues of r., a. and i.); nor do I have a
problem (at this point) with the private sector although I can envisage
having problems with it in the future and certainly members of the private
sector will have increasing problems of their own with r., a., i. in the
future; rather my concern is with "civil society".

By presenting the world so neatly into the three categories one can
presume that "civil society" is meant to "represent" all of those who are
neither governments, nor the private sector.  In practice of course,
"civil society"  in this context refers to those individuals, in some few
instances representing groupings, with both the interest and the resources
to pursue involvement in these discussions. Precisely what links there
might be between this group and the rather larger group of those not (for
whatever reason) participating in these discussions (representation); nor
how this group responds to or identifies the interests of the larger group
(accountability) has to the best of my knowledge been articulated;  and
perhaps most damaging of all, there appears to have been almost no attempt
by "civil society" in this context to reach out to that larger group, even
those such as the ones that I am in touch with, the community ICT
activists and practitioners, who might have the greatest interest in
participation and the most to contribute to such discussions
(inclusiveness).

A counter to my set of observations is of course, that this discussion (as
with the Internet) is open to everyone to participate in, and this is
true; however, I would feel rather more comfortable overall if the concept
(and presentation) of "civil society" in this context were put in both
literal and operational quotation marks and if this group were to
recognize these issues as its responsibility (and to acknowledge that its
very legitimacy depends on visibly making efforts to respond).

That is, my immediate suggestion is that Bertrand (only summarizing what
he in my opinion, quite correctly identifies as the common sense position
of this group here) isn't quite so categorical with his categories; and
what is  presented as summation is in fact seen for what it is, as only
the beginning of the definition of the problem.

Best,

Mike Gurstein



> 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")
>
>
> !DSPAM:2676,465ec3e815225149418951!
>


____________________________________________________________
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