[Mmwg] Mechanism proposition

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> 1/16/2006 11:12 AM >>>
>I think the UN will try to
>make sure that the IGF at least appears to be 
>multistakeholder (being multistakeholder is a requirement)

Yes, of course.

> meaning people in it will be representing interest 
>groups, not themselves. 

Here we disagree. Civil society is not an "interest group." There are highly diverse interests  within it (as we know all too well). The same is true -- even more so -- of "business." These are "sectors" not "interests." The only way to include all sectors (multistakeholderism) is to let anyone with an interest in participating classify themselves as one or the other sector and participate. It would be absurd, e.g., to say that Carlos and RITS represent me, because we are both "civil society." :-)

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

This would be a fatal mistake. The worst thing ICANN ever did was create artificial "constituencies" that purport to "represent" specific interest groups. All this did was create a biased power structure that was immediately captured by a (very tiny) coalition of U.S.-based internet businesses and intellectual property interests. To create such structures is to invite power struggles over capturing them. The less of that, the better.

However, since ICANN actually _makes_ binding policies, there is some justification for creating "constituencies." The IGF will not make binding polciies. There is, therefore absolutely no justification for creating constituencies. We need to encourage and build dialogue, discussion, and ideas for moving forward, not zero-sum political games.