<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<title>RE: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Hi All<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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….<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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 mandate’
(that derives form the WSIS) should be clear, and explained in full detail.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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 . <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>As at present this part read –
“it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins
promptly.”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>“It 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.
”<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>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 IGC’s views on this issue separately.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Thanks.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Parminder<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Lee W McKnight
[mailto:lmcknigh@syr.edu] <br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Wednesday, August 13, 2008
7:09 AM<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> governance@lists.cpsr.org;
Jeffrey A. Williams; governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: [governance] Proposed
contribution for the Hyderabad programme</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=2 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt'>Jeff,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Jeffrey A. Williams [<a href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 11:06 PM<br>
To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme<br>
<br>
Lee and all,<br>
<br>
Ok with me actually, FWTW. Still this didn't answer my
questions. None the less it would<br>
be good to have an outside review if for no other reason than for purposes of
non-nepotism.<br>
I do of course have serious reservations if the "Expert" being
selected from the UN. They<br>
have no "real world" experts, IMO.<br>
<br>
Lee W McKnight wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi,<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> So it is not a question one or the other, it is one and the other.<br>
><br>
> Lee<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [<a href="mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com">mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com</a>]<br>
> Sent: Mon 8/11/2008 9:20 PM<br>
> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org; Carlos Afonso<br>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad
programme<br>
><br>
> Carlos and all,<br>
><br>
> Maybe a good idea, maybe not. Whom are these
"Experts"<br>
> and what qualifies them as such? Secondly, what weight would<br>
> such a "Expert" review vs a participants forum have?<br>
><br>
> Carlos Afonso wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Milton, what about both? I mean, a review which would involve an<br>
> > "expert" consulting group *and* a broad consultation with
the Forum<br>
> > participants?<br>
> ><br>
> > Luckily, the "expert" group retained by the secretariat
could be<br>
> > neutral, independent, well qualified, holistic etc etc. Probably, it<br>
> > will be none of these, but it is interesting to balance this
"expert"<br>
> > view with a consultation (which will need analysis, consolidation etc
as<br>
> > well).<br>
> ><br>
> > frt rgds<br>
> ><br>
> > --c.a.<br>
> ><br>
> > Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
> > > I support this letter, but believe pretty strongly that the
sentence<br>
> > > about the review of IGF needs to be reworded thusly.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Old language:<br>
> > >> it is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF<br>
> > >> begins promptly.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Proposed change:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > It is important that a review involving formal consultation with
IGF<br>
> > > participants begins promptly.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Hope my motivation is clear: do you want a "review and
evaluation" by<br>
> > > some hack consulting group or do you want a "formal
consultation" with<br>
> > > the people who actually constitute (or should constitute) the
Forum?<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Milton Mueller<br>
> > > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies<br>
> > > XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology<br>
> > > ------------------------------<br>
> > > Internet Governance Project:<br>
> > > <a href="http://internetgovernance.org">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > >> -----Original Message-----<br>
> > >> From: Adam Peake [<a href="mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp">mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp</a>]<br>
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:34 AM<br>
> > >> To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
> > >> Subject: [governance] Proposed contribution for the
Hyderabad<br>
> > >> programme paper.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme paper.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Just say yes or no.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Anything controversial will just mean the letter's not going
to get<br>
> > >> sent and again the caucus will have missed the opportunity
to<br>
> > >> influence the process. Bound to be spelling mistakes,
typos and<br>
> > >> messed-up grammar (friendly amendments welcome.)<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> All the ideas in response to Parminder's email so I hope
they have<br>
> > >> our coordinator's support. He can decide on rough
consensus or not.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Adam<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Contribution on the Hyderabad Programme Paper<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> (1) The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully
supports the<br>
> > >> letter sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Coalition
"Rights as core<br>
> > >> theme of the IGF". The issue of rights and the
Internet must remain<br>
> > >> a central theme of the IGF process.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> (2) About the taking stock and way forward session: we
suggest that<br>
> > >> this session be organized in the same "bottom-up"
manner as the other<br>
> > >> main session workshops and debates. In light of para
76 of the Tunis<br>
> > >> Agenda,<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> "76. We ask the UN
Secretary-General to examine the desirability<br>
> > >> of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation
with Forum<br>
> > >> participants, within five years of its creation, and to make<br>
> > >> recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard."<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is organizing a
workshop<br>
> > >> "The role and mandate of the IGF"<br>
> > >> <<a
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71">http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71</a>>
and<br>
> > >> we would be pleased if this workshop could help support
discussion<br>
> > >> during the taking stock session. We would be pleased
to work with<br>
> > >> the MAG and all other stakeholders in discussions to begin
the<br>
> > >> process of review and evaluation of the IGF and how to best
to<br>
> > >> include this important topic in the taking stock and way
forward<br>
> > >> session at the Hyderabad meeting.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> (3) The process of merging individually proposed
workshops and<br>
> > >> setting-up the working groups that are now developing the
main<br>
> > >> session workshops has been very unclear. How were some
workshops<br>
> > >> accepted in these working groups and some not? What
efforts have<br>
> > >> been made to ensure that a balanced representation of views
is<br>
> > >> present in each of the working groups organizing the main
session<br>
> > >> workshops?<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> The caucus believes this process has not worked well, we
would like<br>
> > >> clarification of the process and to be assured that all
stakeholders<br>
> > >> will have the equal opportunity to participate in the
working groups<br>
> > >> developing the main session workshops (and therefore greatly<br>
> > >> influencing the main session debates.)<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> (4) We would like to hear about logistical arrangements for
the<br>
> > >> meetings, particularly the daily schedule (start, finish,
breaks<br>
> > >> etc), information about hotels, particularly affordable
hotels, food<br>
> > >> and refreshments, Internet cafes, and the IGF Village.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> (5) Will there be funds to support participants from
developing<br>
> > >> countries and civil society? Could we please have
details of this.<br>
> > >> We note that the September consultations may be too late to
manage a<br>
> > >> smooth process for allocating funds. Improving participating
from<br>
> > >> developing countries has been identified as a critical issue
by the<br>
> > >> IGFs to date, we are concerned that it is not being
adequately<br>
> > >> addressed.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Thank you,<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> > >> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
> > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> > >>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<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>
> > > governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> > >
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<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>
> > governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> > governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<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>
> Regards,<br>
><br>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)<br>
> "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<br>
> Abraham Lincoln<br>
><br>
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is<br>
> very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<br>
><br>
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;<br>
> liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<br>
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<br>
> United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<br>
> ===============================================================<br>
> Updated 1/26/04<br>
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.<br>
> div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<br>
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail<br>
> jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com<br>
> My Phone: 214-244-4827<br>
><br>
> ____________________________________________________________<br>
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
> governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
> governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<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>
>
Name: winmail.dat<br>
> winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef<br>
>
Encoding: base64<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)<br>
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -<br>
Abraham Lincoln<br>
<br>
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is<br>
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<br>
<br>
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;<br>
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<br>
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<br>
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]<br>
===============================================================<br>
Updated 1/26/04<br>
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.<br>
div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<br>
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail<br>
jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com<br>
My Phone: 214-244-4827<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<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></span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>