[governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory?

[Lee W McKnight]

John,

Agreed re need for 'participatory multistakeholder governance for dummies' or some more elegant title ; )

I've long been suggesting a key part of that need not be reinvented to help ICANN stay on the semi-straight and narrow, if we follow along the lines of the Administrative Procedures Act of 1946.   

The key analogies from the APA for multistakeholder processes relate to - fair administrative process. The multistakeholder participation part is not clear in a 1946 law, but hey. And I'm sure there are other exemplars from around the world, likely more recent. From wikipedia:

 adjudication and rulemaking. (p. 5) Agency adjudication was broken down further into two distinct phases of formal and informal adjudication. (Ibid.) Formal adjudication involve a trial-like hearing with witness testimony, a written record and a final decision. Under informal adjudication, however, agency decisions are made without formal trial-like procedures, using "inspections, conferences and negotiations" instead. (Ibid.) Because formal adjudication produces a record of proceedings and a final decision, it may be subject to judicial review. As for rulemaking resulting in agency rules and regulations, the Final Report noted that many agencies provided due process through hearings and investigations, but there was still a need for well-defined, uniform standards for agency adjudication and rulemaking procedures. 

'Adjudication and rulemaking' may not be the words used by ICANN when constructing eg the gTLD process, but that's what it is. With multistakeholder participation.

Lee


________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of John Curran [jcurran at istaff.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 4:31 AM
To: William Drake
Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [governance] IGC: WCIT process - Open Letter to ITU: IRP Coalition as signatory?

On Dec 10, 2012, at 11:24 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
>
> About 20 CS people met today with SG Toure in Dubai.  He has the letter, and the main points were repeated verbally.  No immediate commitments on these or real replies to specific questions on items like public participation in the May WTPF, but folks were varyingly optimistic that a dialogue has been opened and there's something to build on.
>
> In the meanwhile, the wider situation has evolved here.  With the parties far apart on many issues and basically two days left to negotiate, small groups of government reps from xxx countries (not clear exactly who/how many) went behind closed doors at 10:30pm to see if they can pull a rabbit out of a hat (or insert your preferred metaphor) and come back to plenary tomorrow at 11 am with something for everyone to work on.  So contrary to some rumors that were floating about, there's no SG text, and at the moment the likelihood of a magic compromise vs. a train wreck is pretty hard to work out.  Many variables interacting, so one could paint diametrically opposed but equally plausible scenarios.
>
> In this stressed context, I don't think there's going to be a lot of energy devoted to responding to CS concerns about transparency and inclusion.  Nevertheless, the caucus may wish to endorse the letter to be on record alongside other advocacy groups and networks, particularly with an eye to the WTPF.  Which, BTW, will be held the week before the IGF consultation and MAG meeting in May—would be a good time to come to Geneva if possible.

Regardless of the particular outcomes from WCIT, it might be worthwhile to folks
to consider what exactly is meant by participatory multistakeholder governance,
and even elaborate what some of the more obvious aspects of such processes
look like for future reference.

For example, solicitation of input on various proposals is one component, but
equally important is providing a process for those inputs to be heard during
consideration of the issues.  Another point is whether the multistakeholder
process requires some recording of the major tradeoffs or compromises that
were made towards achieving an outcome.

I believe some more formal guidance and outreach on what makes for effective
multistakeholder processes would be very helpful, not only in this context but
also for the various Internet institutions (such as ICANN and the RIRs)   If such
guidance already exists somewhere in a simple straightforward fom (and I just
have overlooked it), then pointers to same would be appreciated.

Thanks!
/John

Disclaimers:  My views alone.  These views were not the result of a closed
committee compromise and may actually be discussed on their own merits.





-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t