[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
Parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Wed Aug 13 00:25:02 EDT 2008
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 mandate' (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 - "it is important that a review and evaluation
of the IGF begins promptly."
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)
"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. "
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.
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]
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]
> 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
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Adam Peake [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> 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
> > >>
> > > ____________________________________________________________
> > > 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080813/1eeea248/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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