[governance] Proposed contribution for the Hyderabad programme

[Adam Peake]

Parminder, thanks.

Last week Jeanette forwarded an email from Markus Kummer about the 
review/external evaluation (email August 6, subject [governance] 
[Fwd: Outside evaluation]). The review will be on the agenda of 
September's open consultation, and any external review process a 
sub-item of that.  I think we're taking the right approach by making 
our general views known for the August 15 deadline, and then working 
on detail for a statement to be read at the September meeting.

Adam




>Adam
>
>>  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.
>
>
>I agree there two different issues and they should preferable be kept
>separate.
>
>(1) of offering to help through our workshop etc, and applying to be in the
>WG for preparing the main session.
>
>(2) making sure the evaluation is done properly
>
>We should mention only the first one in this case which directly relates to
>IGF program.
>
>The second one was in my mind for some time when I picked up somewhere that
>outside expert evaluation, and possibly a pro bono one, might be under
>consideration. In any case I wanted IGC's position on this, and since the
>issue was opened up by some emails, I introduced it.
>
>I think we should go by the existing text as amended by Adam, and consult
>within the group on the evaluation process separately.
>
>
>The corresponding text for IGC's consideration stands 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"
>
>Thanks. Parminder
>
>I am also putting the full text of the statement that is being proposed, for
>which inputs will be taken for another 6 hours or so, and then it will be
>piut for consensus process for 48 hours.
>____________
>
>Contribution on the IGF Hyderabad Programme Paper
>
>(1)  The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus fully supports the letter
>sent by the Internet Bill of Rights Dynamic Coalition on "Rights as a 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."
>
>It is important that a review and evaluation of the IGF begins promptly and
>be conducted as an inclusive and transparent consultative process involving
>all stakeholders.
>
>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus organized a workshop on "The
>role and mandate of the IGF" at IGF, Rio, and is organizing another with the
>same title at IGF, Hyderabad,
><http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=71> and we would
>be pleased if this workshop, and the IGC, could help support the organizing
>of and the discussion during the taking stock and way forward session, in
>the same way as the preparation for the other main sessions is being done in
>collaboration with some workshop organizers.  We would be pleased to work
>with the MAG and all other stakeholders to use this session to begin the
>process of review and evaluation of the IGF. 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.
>
>(3)  The process of merging individually proposed workshops and setting-up
>the working groups that are to develop 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 needs to be improved and made more
>transparent. We would like clarification of the process and to be assured
>that all stakeholders, and holders of all viewpoints, will have an equal
>opportunity to participate in the working groups developing the main session
>workshops (and therefore greatly influencing the main session debates.)
>
>(4) Improving participating from developing countries has been identified as
>a critical issue by the IGFs to date. We are concerned that this issue is
>not being adequately addressed. We will specifically like to know about the
>funding support available for participation of civil society  from
>developing countries. We note that the September consultations may be too
>late to manage a smooth process for allocating funds, and request that
>immediate action be taken in this regard, and the IGC informed about it.
>
>
>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