1. Is there need for an additional arrangement or body?
Yes
If the answer to question 1 is yes:
2. What functions should it exercise?
(a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum?
Yes
(b) Give policy direction?
Only reactively to stakeholder input. Direction must not be secretariat-led.
(c) Any other function?
Some form of consensus-building and test implementations.
(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?
(b) Only issues outside the scope of existing organizations and institutions?
(a) All, possibly in partnership with existing groups when appropriate.
4. Where should it be anchored (to what institution should it be linked)?
At least three institutions with nothing in common (so not all government or all academic or all industrial or all volunteer or all one nationality).
5. How should it be financed?
As a public shared resource, so probably government-collected contributions according to use of Internet.
6. How should it be structured?
Two-chamber decision-making with public oversight and scrutiny opportunities. Exact structure to be determined by members.
7. What would be its relationship with existing organizations and institutions?
Integration and replacement as appropriate. Hopefully, most of the existing groups will find a home within the new system, but others may need to be replaced in the face of owner opposition. It will be essential to be better than the replaced groups in accountability and responsiveness to stakeholder concerns, and to be able to operate without the replacement if it proves impossible.
Comments