Date: 12/4/2013 11:03 pm
Rate [ 1
I was shortlisted though not ultimately selected for the CSTD's Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, but I intend to participate an an observer and by feeding ideas to the civil society representatives who were selected, through a new Best Bits working group
I've just posted my first thoughts there on a model for the evolution of Internet governance arrangements to curtail what many fear as an ITU power grab, whilst upholding the interests of excluded and unrepresented communities in Internet governance policymaking. The diagram below represents the basic idea, and I'm copying my comments on it below.
As you can see, the proposed Multistakeholder Internet Policy Council (I'm not wedded to that name!) would be established under the auspices of the IGF. The IGF in plenary session could discuss and agree by rough consensus to forward any proposal to the MIPC for its support. Those proposals could be initiated by IGF Dynamic Coalitions or (to be created) working groups, or by external bodies that hold Open Fora at the IGF, such as the OECD, Council of Europe, etc.
This would require reform to the IGF so that its plenary sessions have a more deliberative capacity, and I can expand upon this as necessary, but since the main reform involved here is the new MIPC, I'm going to jump ahead and focus on that instead.
The MIPC would be composed of equal numbers of self-selected representatives from each of the stakeholder groups (civil society, private sector, government), plus the cross-cutting technical and academic community constituency, and observers from intergovernmental organisations. They would meet both as a plenary body and as private caucuses for each stakeholder group/constituency. The purpose of the plenary meetings is to bring together points on which all the stakeholder groups can reach consensus, and the purpose of the caucus meetings is because each stakeholder group has its own preferred methods of negotiation and decision-making. A proposal can be sent back and forth between the plenary and the caucuses as many times as necessary to establish either that an overall rough consensus can be reached, or that it can't.
For a proposal to be finalised as a recommendation of the IGF (note: not "of the MIPC"), the MIPC has to reach an overall rough consensus on it as assessed by the MIPC chair, which includes rough consensus within each stakeholder group as assessed by the caucus chair. The recommendations would be non-binding, though they could call for the development of binding rules where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level.