[governance] WGIGF inputs

[Jeremy Malcolm]

On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:54 +0530, parminder wrote:
> Excuse me to start a new thread in addition to the separate ones based
> on the different questions from the *draft* structure sent out for the
> WGIGF report. The reason for this is that while we discuss the
> details, we should focus on the fact that this is a much higher level
> exercise for seeking possible structural reforms in the IGF

I too felt that the WGIGF was much too limiting, and revealed a not
particularly visionary ambition for the IGF.  I hope that you and the
other CSTD delegates can make some noise about this before it becomes
too late.  It is very easy for agenda-setters to determine substantive
outcomes by default.  This happened with the IGF back in 2006.

> It is necessary that IGC discusses and figures out what is its real
> intent/ objective in seeking IGF reform, wherefrom can flow concrete
> proposals for reform. But lets focus more on larger structural things
> - things like how can IGF's policy issues related outcomes be shaped
> and routed to appropriate places and the what kind of funding is
> appropriate for the IGF. Once we have our views on these critical
> issues, most other things become so much easier to sort out.

My thoughts (coordinator hat off), which you and the other CSTD
delegates can take or leave, are that the MAG needs to be split up into
stakeholder councils, one of which would be purely intergovernmental.
Decisions could only be made by the MAG, by rough consensus, sitting as
a plenary body that includes all the stakeholder councils.  However, the
councils would individually have the power of veto over any decision.

This structure is called consociation, and it is used to share power
between stakeholder groups between which deep divides exist.  That
remains the case between governments and non-governmental stakeholders;
we can now make no mistake about that.

Whilst it may seem a corruption of the ideals of multi-stakeholderism,
the simple fact is that governments will not allow give any power to a
multi-stakeholder process unless they have a sandbox of their own.  If
there is to be such a sandbox, then let us at least make it subject to
the accountability of being part of a larger multi-stakeholder
framework: the new MAG.

The good thing about proposing this at the same time as the enhanced
cooperation discussions are going on, is that it works together with
that very nicely.  The role of the stakeholder councils and the new MAG
need not be limited to the IGF.  They can also have an independent role
in Internet Governance.  The IGF would just be one of the activities
that they oversee.  So by doing this, we get "enhanced cooperation" for
free.

A short and jargon-free paper explaining these thoughts further was
distributed by the IGP a few years ago and is available at
http://www.internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf.  For a long
and jargon-laden version there is always chapter 6 of my book at
http://books.google.com/books?id=G8ETBPD6jHIC.

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Project Coordinator
Consumers International
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

Empowering Tomorrow’s Consumers
CI World Congress, 3-6 May 2011, Hong Kong

Businesses, governments and civil society are invited to join consumer
groups from around the world for four days of debate and discussion on
the issues that matter most to consumers. Register now!
http://www.consumersinternational.org/congress

Twitter #CICongress

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless
necessary.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20110126/ef830403/attachment.bin>