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

[Carlos Afonso]

Good, Bertrand! Let us restart this process on new ground.

--c.a.

Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.4/825 - Release Date: 30/5/2007 15:03

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

____________________________________________________________
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