[Mmwg] Mechanism proposition

[Jaeyoun Kim (Peter)]

I agree with Carlos Afonso. As far as I know, that's the way UN plans to do it.

I think that UN will be very strong on the principle of ensuring full
and effective multistakeholder participation for IGF.

I also like the ideas of Milton Mueller, yet we must not expect too
much at the first IGF.   (One who grasps at too much loses all.)

If we keep trying, we will be able to make substantial improvement of IGF.

Regards,
Jaeyoun Kim (Peter)

>I agree is a complex situation, but this is the way they plan to do it
>-- constituencies being a logical consequence (as in the WGIG). And, as
>in the WGIG, very imperfect representation, but representation anyway.
>
>I also agree "civil society" is too extensive and diverse to be crammed
>into a single interest group. Which makes representation from this
>stakeholder group even more imperfect...
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.

>>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>>>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.