Process/Function 1: "Forum function"
1. Is there need for an additional body
"need" is different to "desire". There is little evidence that there is a "need" for an additional body, in that the space appears to be more than overpopulated with bodies already, and that the mechanisms of market interaction and existing regulatory and coordinating frameworks are probably producing outcomes that would differ in no significant way if there were yet another body.
So in terms of "need" yet another body would be superfluous.
But I don't believe we are really talking about "need". We are talking about existing organizations which are flawed in various ways, and flawed to the extent that they present significant problems of continued acceptability to many of the national players and stakeholders, and the mutual opposition to these existing institutions has appeared to reach levels that no amount of reform or evolution could effectively address. From this perspective it may well be that an appropriate way to ameliorate this entrenched criticism of existing institutions is indeed to contemplate a body that can be set up that from the start admits that the coordinating (or governance) function in this world needs to integrate the desires and perspectives of both the public sector and the private sector in this space. From that perspective a new body could provide some impetus to consider what is appropriate in this context, rather than dwell on the shortcomings and what is inappropriate with the current institutional landscape.
2. What functions should it exercise?
(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum ("without teeth")?
Yes, assuming that other forums relinquish their representations of primacy of role in this space.
(b) Give policy direction?
Yes, in so far as this is of the nature of also explaining the underlying constraints of the policy space. Some areas of policy direction have considerable latitude and could easily be interpreted as recommendations or advice, while other areas of policy are typically highly constrained spaces that admit little capability for further interpretation in the common interest, in which case they are more of the nature of recommendations or even 'necessary to implement'.
This latter category poses authority issues here relating to international bodies and national interests, admittedly. However its an area that cannot be avoided, in that there are a number of strong common imperatives that relate to the coherence and integrity of a global communications system that cannot be readily altered in various forms of national or regional intepretations of a common policy recommendation or advice.
(c) Any other function?
The essential roles here relate to coordination of activity and promoting a common level of understanding about the nature of the activity and the motivation for coordination policies. This latter area encompasses some of the research and investigatory studies undertaken by bodies such as the OECD, for example.
(d) Be a combination of the above?
Yes.
3. What kind of public policy issues should it address?
(a) All issues related to the Internet?
One is always wary of "all" in such an early phase. No - not all. Issues that relate to trade issues, to international copyright, to international patents, and so on are already encompassed within established organisations and it is somewhat presumptious, let alone foolhardy to take on such a broad agenda. The issues that are of interest here relate more to the global coordination of common resources associated with Internet infrastructure, and should be limited to this reather narrow space.
(b) Only issues outside the scope of existing organizations and institutions?
I think the above response encompasses this.
4. Where should it be anchored?
If it requires credibility in the public space it needs formal anchoring in the form of an adopted protocol or convention, adopted by nations.
If it requires credibility in the private sector it needs to be accessible, give industry a voice and give industry the capability to participate and directly influence decision making processes
If it requires credibility in the civil society space it needs to be open, accessible, give civili society a voice and give civil society the capability participate and directly influence decision making processes.
As long as the anchoring reflects these interest then the institution has the capability and potential to earn the respect of these stakeholder groupings.
5. How should it be financed?
Membership fees are a very useful discipline of institutional relevance and effectiveness.
6. How should it be structured?
See the answer to question 4.
7. What would be its relationship with existing organizations and institutions?
As noted in the response to question 1, this body would in effect be structured to assume some of the roles and responsibilities of existing institutions that operate in this space already.
Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!
Posted by: Dissertation Structure | November 18, 2009 at 11:01 PM