[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Tue Aug 12 06:16:19 EDT 2008
Parminder and all,
Agreed with the pro bono concern. I didn't think of that one.
Good catch Parminder! >:)
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 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
>
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
More information about the Governance
mailing list