[Mmwg] Mechanism proposition

[Carlos Afonso]

Milton, it is more complicated, in my view. I think the UN will try to
make sure that the IGF at least appears to be multistakeholder (being
multistakeholder is a requirement) -- meaning people in it will be
representing interest groups, not themselves. It will not be specific
institutional representation, but at least sectoral representation with
some regional balance, I guess.

So the IGF might not be a negotiating space, but will be composed of
representatives.

fraternal rgds

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

> It is my opinion that Luc Faubert has made a fundamental mistake
> about methods of participation, and this mistake is based on a
> fundamental misunderstanding of what the IG Forum is.
>
> The Forum is not a negotiating body and therefore Govts have no basis
> for insisting on the "representative" or "legitimate" nature of
> participants. The same is true of Civil society or business. No one
> can bind anyone to anything via the Forum. The Forum cannot, I think,
> operate on the basis of "consensus" (that is another topic), but its
> reports or deliberations are not legislation. Therefore the emphasis
> on "representation," organizational size and "legitimate parties" is
> misplaced.
>
> IGF is a deliberative forum. As such, the IGF needs to draw and all
> and any forms of available expertise and stakeholder interest.
> Imposing accreditation requirements simply filters out people who may
> have something to contribute but don't have the time or inclination
> to surmount artificially high "barriers to enty." Erecting barriers
> to entry simply undermines the inclusiveness of the forum without
> creating any compensating benefit.
>
> I am very familiar with these tradeoffs from the ICANN mechanisms.
> We can go into those examples in more detail as appropriate.
>
> It is interesting that currently anyone can participate in and IETF
> standards development process, which develops highly demanding
> technical documents that have real impact on the internet. The reason
> the process is open is that people involved know who they can trust,
> who knows something and who doesn't, etc. There is no need for
> artificial, ex ante barriers to entry.
>
>>>> "Luc Faubert" <LFaubert at conceptum.ca> 1/15/2006 1:13 PM >>>
>
> Number of groups I don't think the idea of merging all parties in one
> group would be palatable to governments. While the number of
> governements allowed to participate in the process would be limited
> to those officially recognized by the UN, the only upper bound on the
> number of potential parties in the CS group would be that imposed by
> accreditation (and I think the principles underlying accreditation
> should be intended to screen out illegitimate parties rather than
> limiting the absolute number of CS parties). If the 2 groups are not
> isolated, the importance of governement votes would diminish
> proportionally with the increase of CS parties. I do not think we
> will get approval of governments to go this way.
>
> Minimal number of members The limit of 1000 members could be 100 or
> 500, or whatever we agree on, but the idea of the limit is twofold:
> to prevent individuals who speak only for themselves to participate
> and to ensure a certain "barrier to entry" preventing the spontaneous
> and artificial creation of parties around one specific forum. If the
> civil society group is going to have any credibility with
> governments, it must be formed of legitimate parties. I agree that
> exactly what defines legitimacy can be the subject of endless
> discussion, but if civil society is not perceived to be legitimate,
> its means of action will be limited.
>
> Accreditation The idea behind the accreditation process was to screen
> out illegitimate parties. Maybe this is too slippery a path. It could
> be difficult to define what is a legitimate party in a given forum.
> However, imagine that Al Quaida wanted to participate in IGF. What
> should we do? Maybe even the perspective of having Al Quaida
> officially represented in a forum is worth the simplicity that
> eliminating the accreditation process alltogether would bring to our
> mechanism. What do the others think? Eliminating the need for
> accreditation would also eliminate the need for the boostrap loading
> mechanism I couldn't come up with (i.e. the issue of accrediting the
> first parties when none other than governments are yet accreditated).
>
>
> Consensus I think consensus imposes too many limits on the ability of
> a forum to decide. This is of course dependant on the notion that a
> forum should accomplish more than just discuss. As I mentioned in my
> notes, I think the need to reach consensus often dilutes final text
> to flavorless and useless amenities.
>
> Seating If seating is to be available for all who wish to
> participate, I fear some plenaries will be impossible to hold.
> Imagine a forum meeting where 20 parties each come with 500 members
> wishing to participate. How do you manage this? Our mechanism must
> ensure "full and equal participation by all stakeholders", thus my
> proposition that all parties of either group (governement or civil
> society) be allowed to seat an equal number of delegates, limited
> only by available seating.
>
> WGIG I think we need to come up with a better model than WGIG,
> because its mechanism did not allow for "full and equal participation
> by all stakeholders". Although the spirit was undeniably cooperative
> in WGIG, I don't think we can say that associations and governments
> worked peer-to-peer.
>
>
> - Luc Faubert ISOC Québec
> _______________________________________________ mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
> _______________________________________________ mmwg mailing list
> mmwg at wsis-cs.org
> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/mmwg
>
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************