[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Wed Aug 13 02:00:06 EDT 2008
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list