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

[Lee McKnight]

I also agree Bertrand's is a helpful formulation.

If classic international organizations like the UN and entities emerging from industry and academic circles like ietf and w3c can be treated as co-equal in this new space, then we have made a breathrough. 

However, the line between those and other civil society groups with an international mandate is still blurry, at least to me.

But if we can move from oppressed minority in terms of mag membership to part of a co-equal coalition, then that's cool. 

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> ca at rits.org.br 5/31/2007 10:42 AM >>>
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
____________________________________________________________
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