[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Tue Aug 12 06:51:35 EDT 2008
Adam and all,
Well Adam I am sure I don't agree fully. The old adage is that
the Devil is often in the Details is oh so true. Milton as a legally
trained individual know this all to well. So am I, and I do as well.
Seems that Parminder is also so clued, as it were...
Right now there doesn't seen to be a draft document or specified
proposal. This is fine if this is the beginning of the process. It's not
if one is asking for blind trust support. Yet I do support the effort
and concept. I reserve my support and would council our members
to do so as well for the time being and until there is a draft document,
and or position statement paper.
Adam Peake wrote:
> Parminder, Milton:
>
> I agree some change is necessary, but have
> problems with both your proposals. I suggest
> trying to stick as closely as possible to the
> text Parminder sent yesterday making a slight
> change such as:
>
> "it is important that a review and evaluation of
> the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an
> inclusive and transparent consultative process
> involving all stakeholders"
>
> I think you are opening up a simple comment in
> ways that need too much discussion.
>
> Parminder: you are getting into too much detail.
> The impact of the statement we need to make
> "begin the review, we are offering to help" is
> being lost.
>
> Milton:
>
> "Formal consultation with the IGF" may be
> interpreted in ways we like less, leading perhaps
> to focus more on discussion only within the Forum
> as it is convened on an annual basis and any post
> CSTD follow-up (i.e. with govt as lead entities.)
> One response on the MAG list to the proposal to
> begin an outside evaluation was:
>
> "With due respect to [name deleted] and IGF
> Secretariat, I am asking myself whether proposed
> way of action corresponds to the WSIS decision
> which reads as follows:
> 76.We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine
> the desirability of the continuation of the
> Forum, in formal consultation with Forum
> participants, within five years of its creation,
> and to make recommendations to the UN Membership
> in this regard.
> In other words, IGF Chair Nitin Desai and the
> Secretariat is asked to assess the usefulness of
> continuation of the IGF in the formal way --
> session of the forth or fifth IGF meeting and
> advise UN SG on the course of further action.
> [stuff deleted]
> In other words, I am not supporting a conduct of
> outside evaluation, but suggest returning to the
> question of the possible form of the formal
> consultation with Forum participants after India
> meeting in May 2009."
>
> Note, this was in response to whether or not a
> draft terms of reference for the evaluation (a
> "food for thought" document) should be put out
> for public comment.
>
> Just go back to a simple reformulation of the
> text people have been reading please. Let's use:
>
> "it is important that a review and evaluation of
> the IGF begins promptly and be conducted in an
> inclusive and transparent consultative process
> involving all stakeholders"
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
> At 9:55 AM +0530 8/13/08, Parminder wrote:
> >Hi All
> >
> >
> >In my view, an expert evaluation does have a
> >role. However its relationship with, and
> >political subordination to, the public
> >consultation process should be strongly clear.
> >It exists not to give a definitive view of the
> >IGF, which assessment is political and belongs
> >to the people, stakeholders, constituent groups
> >etc.
> >
> >At the same time, the basis of choosing the
> >experts should be clear and transparent, and
> >should meet the purpose of the evaluation with
> >regard to the context, role and mandate of the
> >IGF. Both the neutrality and the appropriateness
> >to context, role and mandate¹ (that derives
> >form the WSIS) should be clear, and explained in
> >full detail.
> >
> >I am also very wary, and somewhat suspicious, of
> >pro bono evaluations offered by any expert or
> >agency. And I have a feeling that there is a
> >strong possibility that this route may be
> >attempted in this case. Choice of expert should
> >be based on rational criteria as described
> >above, and not on the basis of any pro bono
> >offer. I think this too should be stated .
> >
> >Taking the views expressed so far on this
> >together, and adding from the above, I propose
> >the following part to replace the stated part of
> >our input.
> >
> >As at present this part read ³it is important
> >that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins
> >promptly.²
> >
> >Suggested amended text (of some length, because
> >the evaluation is going to be one of the
> >important political activity in the next few
> >months/ year)
> >
> >³It is important that a review and evaluation of
> >the IGF begins promptly. The review should be
> >done through wide public consultations,
> >including with IGF participants. This should be
> >a formal process, which is very open and
> >transparent. If it is felt required to do an
> >outside expert assessment to help this review
> >process, complete due diligence should be
> >exercised. The process of selection of the
> >expert should be based on rational criteria
> >connected to the context, role and mandate of
> >the IGF as per the WSIS. The rationale behind
> >such selection should be made public. The terms
> >of reference should be open and based on
> >appropriate consultations. The role of the
> >expert input as a mean to assist the review
> >process anchored in public consultations, and
> >its subordination to it, should be made clear.
> >Experts should not be chosen just because their
> >services are available pro bono. ²
> >
> >
> >I still have about 14 hours or so to take in
> >comments. If I find this suggested amendment is
> >found controversial, I will go back to the
> >original, and seek IGC¹s views on this issue
> >separately.
> >
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu]
> >Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 7:09 AM
> >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeffrey A. Williams; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >Subject: RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
> >
> >Jeff,
> >
> >The expert would not be 'from' UN. Further,
> >since 'experts' cannot apply for a gig for which
> >there has been no call, your question on who
> >exactly they might be cannot be answered as yet.
> >And I did tell you my view you on the relative
> >weighting of the 'expert' vs self-reflective IGF
> >reviews by governments. But that is just my
> >opinion.
> >
> >Lee
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jeffrey A. Williams
> >[<mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com]
> >Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM
> >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
> >
> >Lee and all,
> >
> > Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't
> >answer my questions. None the less it would
> >be good to have an outside review if for no
> >other reason than for purposes of non-nepotism.
> >I do of course have serious reservations if the
> >"Expert" being selected from the UN. They
> >have no "real world" experts, IMO.
> >
> >Lee W McKnight wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I think Carlos is just being practical, since
> >>it is quite likely that an outside 'expert'
> >>group will be brought in, with the expert
> >>selected by UN staffers from amongst the
> >>applicants for the gig, whenever a call goes
> >>out requesting bids. Presuming a public call
> >>does go out. For governments and other sources
> >>of funding, the expert report might be seen as
> >>definitive, presuming it is reasonably well
> >>done.
> >>
> >> The IGF engaging in self-reflection and
> >>self-criticism, is as Milton suggests also
> >>needed, and is part of the idea for the
> >>workshop some of us CSers are working on
> >>getting organized for Hyderabad, incolving also
> >>other stakeholders. And ideally will feed back
> >>into the expert report.
> >>
> >> So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other.
> >>
> >> Lee
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams
> >>[<mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>mailto:jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com]
> >> Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
> >>
> >> Carlos and all,
> >>
> >> Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these "Experts"
> >> and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would
> >> such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have?
> >>
> >> Carlos Afonso wrote:
> >>
> >> > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an
> >> > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with the Forum
> >> > participants?
> >> >
> >> > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat could be
> >> > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it
> >> > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this "expert"
> >> > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc as
> >> > well).
> >> >
> >> > frt rgds
> >> >
> >> > --c.a.
> >> >
> >> > Milton L Mueller wrote:
> >> > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the sentence
> >> > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Old language:
> >> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF
> >> > >> begins promptly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Proposed change:
> >> > >
> >> > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with IGF
> >> > > participants begins promptly.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and evaluation" by
> >> > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal consultation" with
> >> > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the Forum?
> >> > >
> >> > > Milton Mueller
> >> > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> >> > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
> >> > > ------------------------------
> >> > > Internet Governance Project:
> >> > > <http://internetgovernance.org>http://internetgovernance.org
> > > > >
> >> > >
> >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > >> From: Adam Peake [<mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp>mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> >> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM
> >> > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad
> >> > >> programme paper.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Just say yes or no.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going to get
> >> > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity to
> >> > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes, typos and
> >> > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope they have
> >> > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough consensus or not.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Adam
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the
> >> > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition "Rights as core
> >> > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the Internet must remain
> >> > >> a central theme of the IGF process.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we suggest that
> >> > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up" manner as the other
> >> > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para 76 of the Tunis
> >> > >> Agenda,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> "76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability
> >> > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum
> >> > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make
> >> > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard."
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a workshop
> >> > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF"
> >> > >>
> >><<http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71>http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71>
> >>and
> >> > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support discussion
> >> > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased to work with
> >> > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin the
> >> > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best to
> >> > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way forward
> >> > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed workshops and
> >> > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the main
> >> > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some workshops
> >> > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What efforts have
> >> > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views is
> >> > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main session
> >> > >> workshops?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we would like
> >> > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all stakeholders
> >> > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the working groups
> >> > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly
> >> > >> influencing the main session debates.)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for the
> >> > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish, breaks
> >> > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable hotels, food
> >> > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from developing
> >> > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have details of this.
> >> > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to manage a
> >> > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating from
> >> > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue by the
> >> > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being adequately
> >> > >> addressed.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Thank you,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________
> > > > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > >>
> >> > >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >> > >>
> >><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> > >>
> >> > > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> > > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > >
> >> > > For all list information and functions, see:
> >> > >
> >><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >> >
> >> > For all list information and functions, see:
> >> >
> >><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
> >> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> >> Abraham Lincoln
> >>
> >> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> >> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >>
> >> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> >> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> >> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> >> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> >> ===============================================================
> >> Updated 1/26/04
> >> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> >> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> >> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> >> jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> >> My Phone: 214-244-4827
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>
> >><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Name: winmail.dat
> >> winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef
> >> Encoding: base64
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
> >"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> > Abraham Lincoln
> >
> >"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> >very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> >"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> >liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> >P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> >United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> >===============================================================
> >Updated 1/26/04
> >CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
> >div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
> >ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
> >jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> >My Phone: 214-244-4827
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> >
> ><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >
> >____________________________________________________________
> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >
> >For all list information and functions, see:
> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
For all list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
More information about the Governance
mailing list