[governance] Re: what is it that threatens the Internet community or 'who is afraid of the IGF'

[Jeremy Malcolm]

Parminder wrote:
> I don’t see members of IGC taking any view on this, which is surprising. 
> What is the justification in not wanting IGF related powers to be with a 
> multistakeholder group, rather than this group that just advises the UN 
> Secy General.  Why are we not promoting real CS stakeholdership in 
> global governance, and rather pulling back from a process that seeks to 
> do so?

Actually I have taken a view on it.  From my thesis (omitting citations):

 > Almost by definition, it is illegitimate for the United Nations thus
 > to exercise leadership of a multi-stakeholder governance network,
 > because the UN remains fundamentally an intergovernmental
 > organisation, which allows for only limited participation in certain
 > of its activities by civil society and the private sector. It is for
 > the same reason that it was argued above that the Secretariat should
 > be limited to performing technical roles.
 >
 > But an additional reason for excluding the UN from maintaining
 > hierarchical control over the Advisory Group is that the Tunis Agenda
 > itself appears to limit the Secretary-General’s role to the
 > establishment of that group, providing no warrant for the continuing
 > role that he has assumed. The only ongoing roles provided for the
 > Secretary-General by the Tunis Agenda are to periodically report back
 > upon the IGF’s progress to the General Assembly, and to re-assess
 > the IGF’s mandate following its fifth meeting.
 >
 > Therefore, reform of the Advisory Group is necessary. The most
 > pressing reforms are twofold. First, like the Secretariat, it must be
 > appointed by multi-stakeholder, democratic means, though as also
 > noted in respect of the Secretariat, this implies a parallel reform
 > that would provide the means for the stakeholder groups each to
 > nominate or appoint their own representatives to smaller committees
 > of the IGF. Whilst this reform is yet to be discussed in detail, it
 > would hardly be much of an innovation, as it was in like manner that
 > civil society’s representatives were appointed to WGIG.
 >
 > The second required reform is not so much one for the Advisory Group,
 > as one that the limitations of the Advisory Group make necessary. It
 > is the need for another body to take up functions that exceed the
 > mandate of the Advisory Group and Secretariat. Some of these are
 > functions that they have taken upon themselves regardless of this
 > being in excess of their mandate; such as setting the structure and
 > working methods of the IGF. Others are functions that they have not
 > attempted to address at all, such as the facilitation of the
 > development of recommendations, as Brazil emphasised during the May
 > 2007 open consultations in pressing for the establishment of an IGF
 > bureau.

That URL again... http://www.malcolm.id.au/thesis.

-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'
____________________________________________________________
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