Process/Function 1 : "Forum function"
1. Is there need for an additional body? Yes
2. What functions should it exercise? (a) Create a space for a multi-stakeholder discussion forum?
Mandatory
(b) Give policy direction?
It depends on what we mean by "direction." I think the OECD provides a good model in this regard. On the one hand, it should not by default have a mandate to negotiate "hard" instruments like treaties or contracts.
However, in exceptional circumstances when parties agree such is needed, there could be a mechanism that allows this. On the other hand, in a somewhat wider range of cases it could be useful to allow the development of "soft law" instruments like recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. Here too the threshold at which this option kicks in should not be too low, and an agreement to develop an instrument would have to come after a period of sustained dialogue, needs assessment, and consensus building. Normally, the focus should be on
* Inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction where appropriate, i.e. in working groups (here the ITU model is instructive, i.e. in the different ways study groups and plenaries work);
* systematic monitoring of trends;
* comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements;
* assessment of horizontal issues applicable to all arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other principles of "good governance;"
* identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the ambit of any existing body;
* identification of potential tensions between separately developed mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among them (I‚m a bit skeptical here);
* promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and initiatives, where possible; and
* "pre-decision" agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the work of other bodies.
(c) Any other function?
No
(d) Be a combination of the above?
Above.
One larger issue that does not fit the questionnaire‚s categories: are we talking about a new body that would focus only on IG, or are we talking about a body with a broader "global information society" mandate that would also do IG? In WGIG we have tended to talk about the "new entity" question without reference to the larger debate on WSIS follow-up and implementation. Whether that will, or should, be a sustainable binary distinction is unclear. There are strong arguments for both configurations that need to be assessed on a comparative basis.
3. What kind of public policy issues should it address?
(a) All issues related to the Internet?
Yes, with the proviso that of course there should be greater concentration on those issues that do not fall squarely under other organization‚s mandates, unless there‚s a compelling reason.
(b) Only issues outside the scope of existing organizations and institutions?
Above
4. Where should it be anchored?
There are two issues here: 1) whether it should be under the legal authority of the UN or free-standing, and 2) if the answer to the first is yes, then where in the UN. On the first, placing it under UN auspices would only be desirable if very strong and clear commitments and protections are built in with respect to the roles of the private sector and civil society. Otherwise, a UN-based "ILO model" could easily take on a somewhat restrictive and exclusionary character that simply would not be functionally effective or politically acceptable to a great many stakeholders whose support would be needed for the initiative to work. As a UN-based agency and a free-standing MSP (with recognition from the UN) both have potential strengths and weaknesses, a comparative assessment is needed before a judgement can be made. On the second, were it to be under the UN, the obvious options are a) a new functional agency, or b) a "functional commission" under ECOSOC. Here too there are strengths and weaknesses to both models that would need comparative assessment.
5. How should it be financed?
Government and corporate contributions according to an equitable formula reflecting stakes and ability to pay etc. Presumably these would have to be voluntary, which raises all kinds of problems.
6. How should it be structured?
Per above, some differentiated architecture that includes separate rules and dynamics for different functions or phases (i.e. agenda setting vs negotiation vs monitoring of compliance and implementation). Working groups could entail peer-to-peer multistakeholder collaboration, while plenary decision making would probably have to involve more aggregation of private sector and civil society inputs. The top-level structure would also have to allow for representation by the secretariat leadership of other governance arrangements.
7. What would be its relationship with existing organizations and institutions?
Contentious
haha...It is so useful imformation for us to read...gogo..
Posted by: christian louboutin | October 28, 2010 at 06:04 PM
Prosolution Pills Malta
http://leathercarryonluggage.net/ - order xanax online no prescription
This medication has many different properties to it including being a sedative, a hypnotic, an anticonvulsant, an anxiolytic, as well as a muscle relaxant in some patients.
http://leathercarryonluggage.net/ - buy xanax online without prescription
Posted by: pofSpearo | August 21, 2011 at 05:00 PM
Orequelve http://www.ahomeinbulgaria.net/ - levitra pas cher C’est un medicament inhibiteur de phosphodiesterase (PDE 5) qui detend les vaisseaux sanguins comme le Viagra et le Cialis, qui permet l’afflux sanguin vers la region penienne. http://www.ahomeinbulgaria.net/ - achat levitra
Posted by: Orequelve | September 05, 2011 at 04:15 PM