<html>
<body>
I vote YES.<br><br>
Hakikur Rahman<br><br>
At 11:23 PM 2/15/2009, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">We now need to wrap this up for
presentation in Geneva next week. Please indicate either YES or NO to the
statement below in response to this message.<br>
<br>
If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would
be helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if
necessary.<br>
<br>
<br>
STATEMENT<br>
<br>
As mentioned in the Tunis Agenda, the process of review should be
centered on consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These
consultations should be both formal and informal. It will also be
necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested
stakeholders, who for different reasons may not attend the IGF
meetings.<br>
<br>
The process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
including constituencies in developing counties including those of civil
society. Other groups with lower participation in IG issues like women,
ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be especially reached
out to.<br>
<br>
IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF,
accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and
stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of
the IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed
represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process
and making recommendations based on this analysis.<br>
<br>
In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and
transparent, it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are
independent from the IGF and its active stakeholders (including the
United Nations). The process should be open and transparent. It is not
advisable to rely solely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that
offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important
assessment.<br>
<br>
The selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global
public policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political
significance of IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy
institution in the global South do the evaluation in partnership with one
such institution from the North. There should be adequate balancing of
perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships
are a good way to ensure it.<br>
</font><font size=2 color="#000080"> <br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font size=2> <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Ian Peter<br>
PO Box</font> 429<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times">Bangalow NSW 2479<br>
Australia<br>
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773<br>
<a href="http://www.ianpeter.com/" eudora="autourl">www.ianpeter.com</a>
<br>
</font><font face="Courier New, Courier" size=2> <br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font>____________________________________________________________<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" eudora="autourl">
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a></blockquote></body>
</html>