<div>Hi Michael and all,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Helpful desorption of he oftimes branchings-off ... and just to add a footnote, there is very little if anything I witness at or re. the United Nations that is not at least pledged to Development.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>And expressly so.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>So this discussion is timely indeed.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best wishes, LDMF.</div>
<div>Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff</div>
<div>*Respectful Interfaces*<br><br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 2/18/08, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Gurstein</b> <<a href="mailto:gurstein@gmail.com">gurstein@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Thanks for the opening Parminder and note that I've changed the subject<br>linel...<br><br>As some of you will recall, the WSIS was nominally directed towards linking<br>
ICTs with the "development agenda". Much of CS participation in the first<br>(and ostensibly 'substantive") Geneva round (and led by Bill McIver and<br>others) was to deal with ICT4D issues.<br><br>It was only in the second (Tunis round) that "governance" issues came to the<br>
fore and where CS (through this list) and others began to focus more or less<br>all of its attention onto those matters through the IGF.<br><br>The designation of groups for post-WSIS "implementation" has meant that most<br>
of the substantive issues were assigned to one or another of the UN paper<br>mills never again to see the light of day among non-paper millsian folks...<br><br>Post-WSIS policy discussions were (at least informally) meant to be<br>
proceeded with on the governance side through the IGF and on the ICT4D side<br>through the Global Alliance for ICT4D (i.e. the GAID which morphed from the<br>UN's ICT4D Task Force when that agency sunsetted in December 2005...<br>
<br>Since then, the IGF has captured more or less all of the attention of CS,<br>and seems well on the way to becoming some sort of "agency" and focal point<br>for all forms and measures of post-WSIS substantive policy discussions cf.<br>
Don Maclean's recent post on Sustainable Development and the IGF, and Tom<br>Lowenhaupt's suggestion of a Cities TLD theme.<br><br>In the meantime the GAID publicly abjured itself from a "policy role" (the<br>
Santa Clara meeting), attempted to establish itself as a<br>programmatic/implementation body (through its partnership with Intel and<br>through its adoption (as its own) of various already existing programmatic<br>initiatives (<a href="http://Telecentres.org">Telecentres.org</a>, the African connectivity initiative)). In<br>
addition, the GAID adopted for itself a completely non-transparent and<br>top-down governance structure and only infrequently surfaced as the<br>sponsor/co-sponsor of various events in various places with little<br>coherence, virtually no frameworks for non-centralized participation, and<br>
little visible contribution to ICT4D "policy".<br><br>In the absence of any "there" being "there", the IGF has, through its own<br>vague adoption of a "development" mandate (and "access" as a theme) begun a<br>
measure of mission creep into the ICT4D space.<br><br>Back to what Parminder points to below... Before the Rio IGF I did an<br>informal survey among the various e-lists where grassroots ICT4D engaged<br>parties would be found to determine how many of them might be attending the<br>
IGF. I got, I believe 3 positive replies--one of whom was an official who<br>would likely be sent as part of a delegation, and two were from Brazil who<br>might be attending out of some general interest in the subject... (of course<br>
there may have been more, who didn't reply but the email was circulated to<br>the 3 or 4000 folks who would most likely have an interest (from a "bottom<br>up perspective") in ICT4D policy issues.<br><br>The recent GK3 conference in KL on the other hand had very large numbers of<br>
the relevent ICT4D folks, virtually no participation from the CS folks on<br>this list (at least by casual observation) and again willfully and evidently<br>deliberately stayed away from substantive policy discussion in favour of<br>
case studies, how to's, presentations of programs etc.etc.<br><br>To conclude this ramble, I do not think that the IGF is an appropriate forum<br>for ICT4D policy discussion (not including the very very small sub-section<br>
where ICT4D and IG issues narrowly defined overlap...)<br><br>The communities (particularly on the CS side) do not overlap in<br>representation, knowledge bases, interest, or overall desired outcomes (for<br>the events). ICT4D needs to have its own policy forum (I guess a subsidiary<br>
spun off group from the IGF if properly constituted might work) and<br>particularly one where the necessary voices of grassroots ICT4D folks can<br>make themselves heard.<br><br>How or where to do this, I have no idea at this point, but that a gap exists<br>
becomes more evident each day.<br><br>Michael Gurstein<br><br>M. Gurstein (2007) "What is Community Informatics? (and Why Does It<br>Matter)", (Polimetrica. Milan)<br><a href="http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012372/01/WHAT_IS_COMMUNITY_INFORMATICS_r">http://eprints.rclis.org/archive/00012372/01/WHAT_IS_COMMUNITY_INFORMATICS_r</a><br>
eading.pdf<br><br>-----Original Message-----<br>From: Parminder [mailto:<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>]<br>Sent: February 18, 2008 8:45 AM<br>To: 'Adam Peake'; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG<br><br>> I believe we should be looking to increase the<br>> number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?)<br>> not trying to put things back in WSIS style<br>> boxes. Expanding participation is progress.<br>
<br>But we cant be blind to the directions of this expansion. Giganet may be<br>fine, but what about the telecentre and ICTD groups Michael Gurstein keep<br>claiming representation for. We go back to boxes, only when we see safety in<br>
the boxes. CS's fight for progressive interests is a big ongoing struggle,<br>and various kinds of cooptions is one of the main things it is often up<br>against.<br><br>Parminder<br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>]<br>> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:16 PM<br>> To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>; Parminder<br>
> Subject: RE: [governance] Reconstituting MAG<br>><br>><br>> ><br>><br>> snip<br>><br>> >Membership of the MAG<br>> >· We think that 40 is a good number for<br>> >MAG members. One third of MAG members should be<br>
> >rotated every year.<br>> >· The rules for membership of the MAG,<br>> >including in terms of representation of<br>> >different stakeholders, should be clearly<br>> >established, and make open along with due<br>
> >justifications. We think that as per Tunis<br>> >Agenda¹s multi-stakeholder approach, membership<br>> >should be divided equally among governments,<br>> >civil society and the business sector. TA also<br>
> >rightly recognizes international organizations<br>> >involved in IG as a stakeholder category, and<br>> >they should be allowed an appropriate number of<br>> >seats in the MAG.<br>><br>><br>
> The Internet organizations<br>> (technical/administrative community, whatever,<br>> the I*s) have been over represented in the MAG to<br>> date, but should continue to be represented as a<br>> separate stakeholder group.<br>
><br>> I disagree with returning to the TA looking for<br>> rules. The MAG itself is an interpretation of the<br>> TA, picking and choosing from that document could<br>> dump us back with discussion of a Bureau, much<br>
> reduced participation, perhaps even text about<br>> stakeholders acting in their respective roles.<br>><br>> I believe we should be looking to increase the<br>> number of stakeholder groups (giganet anyone?)<br>
> not trying to put things back in WSIS style<br>> boxes. Expanding participation is progress.<br>><br>><br>><br>> >· As per above, if we leave, say, 6<br>> >seats for international organizations,<br>
><br>><br>> Why? What's wrong with the usual observer role.<br>> (And is it international organizations or<br>> intergovernmental organizations and is there any<br>> difference in the UN... I should know this!)<br>
><br>><br>> > out of the remaining 34 seats civil should be<br>> >entitled to 11 seats. There are five civil<br>> >society members<br>><br>><br>> I think there are seven CS members. You might be missing Titi and<br>
> Erick.<br>><br>> That's all for now.<br>><br>> Thanks,<br>><br>> Adam<br>><br>><br>><br>><br>> >at present in a MAG of 40, an anomaly which<br>> >should be corrected in this round of rotation of<br>
> >members. Obviously, this cannot happen if we<br>> >replace each retiring member with one from the<br>> >same stakeholder group. Full civil society<br>> >representation is necessary to ensure legitimacy<br>
> >for this new experiment in global governance.<br>> >· Stakeholder representatives should be<br>> >chosen based on appropriate processes of<br>> >self-selection by stakeholder groups. We do<br>
> >appreciate that it is difficult to recognize any<br>> >one stakeholder entity, or even a given set of<br>> >them, as completely representing the whole of<br>> >that particular stakeholder group. This<br>
> >complicates the process of selection, especially<br>> >in the case of civil society and business<br>> >sectors, and makes for some scope for the final<br>> >selecting authority exercising a degree of<br>
> >judgment. This, however, should be done in a<br>> >completely transparent manner. Deviations from<br>> >the self-selection processes of stakeholder<br>> >groups should be kept to the minimum and be<br>
> >defensible, and normally be explained.<br>> >· All stakeholders should be asked to<br>> >keep in mind the need to adequately represent<br>> >diversity in terms of gender, geography, and,<br>
> >where applicable, special interest groups.<br>> >Special Advisors and Chair<br>> >· The role and necessity of the Special<br>> >Advisors should be clarified, as also the<br>> >criteria for their selection. Adequate diversity<br>
> >should be represented in the selection of<br>> >Special Advisors as well.<br>> >· We are of the opinion that in keeping<br>> >with the multi-stakeholder nature of the MAG,<br>> >there should only be one chair, nominated by the<br>
> >UN SG. The host country should be able to<br>> >nominate a deputy chair, an arrangement that<br>> >would be helpful in context of various issues of<br>> >logistics for the annul IGF meetings. In any<br>
> >case, we will like to understand the division of<br>> >work and responsibility between the two chairs,<br>> >in the present arrangement? It may be too late<br>> >to move over to this suggested arrangement for<br>
> >the New Delhi meeting, especially if the Indian<br>> >government representative has already taken over<br>> >as the co-chair, but we can take a decision now<br>> >about the post-Delhi phase.<br>
> >Role and Structure of the MAG<br>> >With the experience of two years of IGF, it is<br>> >also the right time to re-visit the role and the<br>> >structure of MAG. It will be appropriate to list<br>
> >out the functions that MAG is expected to play.<br>> >· One function is of course to make all<br>> >arrangements for the annual IGF meeting. We must<br>> >reviews MAG¹s experience with carrying out this<br>
> >function. What more needs to be done by MAG to<br>> >further improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We<br>> >are of the opinion that MAG must review its<br>> >decision making processes to make them more<br>
> >effective. These are especially important if IGF<br>> >is to evolve into something more than what it is<br>> >today, to enable it to fulfill all aspects of<br>> >its mandate.<br>> >· It will be very useful for MAG to work<br>
> >through working groups. These WGs should prepare<br>> >for each main session and the set of workshops<br>> >connected to this main session. WGs can also be<br>> >used for managing internal tasks of MAG more<br>
> >effectively.<br>> >· We will also like greater clarity at<br>> >this point whether MAG has any substantive<br>> >identity other than advising the UN SG. For<br>> >instance, to carry out some part of the mandate<br>
> >which requires interfacing¹, advising¹,<br>> >identifying issues¹, giving recommendations¹<br>> >etc, MAG needs to be able to represent IGF. It<br>> >looks highly impractical that these tasks can<br>
> >cohere in the UN SG.<br>> >· Having some authority and identity of<br>> >its own is also required for MAG to do some<br>> >important regular tasks like assessing how well<br>> >is the Tunis Agenda mandate being fulfilled by<br>
> >the IGF and what more needs to be done. Does MAG<br>> >ever undertake, or propose to undertake, such an<br>> >exercise? If not MAG, who would carry out this<br>> >exercise, which needs to be done with full<br>
> >engagement of all stakeholders.<br>> >· An annual report needs to be submitted<br>> >by the IGF to the UN Commission on Science and<br>> >Technology. Is MAG in anyway involved in<br>> >preparing this annual report, at present? It is<br>
> >appropriate that MAG prepares and submits this<br>> >report, with engagement of all stakeholder<br>> >members.<br>> >· (Alternate text for the above point<br>> >since CSTD is an inter-governmental body and<br>
> >there is nothing very exciting about it. But<br>> >every organization including IGF should have an<br>> >annual report.) MAG should prepare an annual<br>> >report for the IGF. This report should mention<br>
> >IGF activities and performance for the year<br>> >against relevant parts of the TA which lays out<br>> >its mandate, and also outline plans for the year<br>> >ahead.<br>> >· IGF should actively encourage regional<br>
> >and national level IGFs, and a specific plan<br>> >should be drawn out for this purpose, possibly<br>> >using a WG. Such a need is also expressed in the<br>> >paragraph 80 of TA.<br>> >Greater financial support for the IGF, through<br>
> >untied public funds, is one of the central<br>> >imperatives for improving the effectiveness, and consequently, the<br>> >meaningfulness, of the IGF. We understand that a meeting among<br>> >potential funders is being held in Geneva around the<br>
> >February consultations on this issue, and we<br>> >look forward to some positive results from that<br>> >meeting.<br>> >IGF should also fund the participation of at<br>> >least 5 members of civil society from developing<br>
> >and least developed countries to ensure<br>> >meaningful participation in its open<br>> >consultations.<br>> >In the end, we appeal that we all use the full<br>> >term MAG at least for official purposes, because<br>
> >multi-stakeholderism is the most important<br>> >aspect of the IGF.<br>> >Thank you.<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > > -----Original Message-----<br>> > > From: Ken Lohento [mailto:<a href="mailto:klohento@panos-ao.org">klohento@panos-ao.org</a>]<br>
> > > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:31 PM<br>> > > To: <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> > > Cc: Parminder<br>> > > Subject: Re: [governance] Reconstituting MAG<br>
> > ><br>> ><br>> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.odt ( / )<br>> (00508305)<br>> >Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:MAG statement.doc (WDBN/«IC»)<br>> (00508306)<br>
> >____________________________________________________________<br>> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>> > <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
> >To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>> > <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>> ><br>> >For all list information and functions, see:<br>
> > <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br><br>____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br> <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br> <a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>For all list information and functions, see:<br> <a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br></blockquote></div><br>