FW: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation]
Michael Gurstein
gurstein at gmail.com
Wed Aug 13 16:10:50 EDT 2008
Good to hear Adam, although from my experience when you put the terms UNSG
and "evaluation" together things tend to be directed to either OIOS or to
the JIU... And I would have thought that at least the first part of what you
quoted rather reinforces my point rather than yours especially if the term
"evaluation" is put in place of "examine the desirability of" as in the
original message to which I responded.
But the proof will be in the pudding (although fore-warned is fore-armed...
Catch phrasedly yours,
MG
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
Sent: August 13, 2008 11:38 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein
Subject: Re: FW: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation]
Michael,
Interesting comments, but you are reading too much into the word
evaluation and have forgotten that the IGF is not part of the UN. It
won't be given over to the UN, the Tunis Agenda para 76 gives us an
outline of the process:
"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."
Given what we know about how the IGF's operated to date, then very
likely this review/evaluation will be part of the usual IGF process
of open consultations, rolling documents etc, most likely leading to
some "formal consultation with Forum participants" (some seem to
think this will be a session at a future annual IGF, perhaps 2009)
which will "make recommendations to the UN Membership", i.e. the GA.
And as the email Jeanette forwarded last week explains, the GA's
decisions are prepared by appropriate subsidiary bodies, in the case
of WSIS/IGF that's CSTD and ECOSOC.
Best I understand, any review/evaluation will be undertaken by the
IGF (an external entity might be used to help, a good idea I think if
it has competency, is trustworthy, etc) and the time the UN gets
formally involved is in receiving the forum's recommendations.
Hope this helps. There's nothing to fear.
Adam
>Since only a couple of people seem to have read this below when I first
>sent it out I'm taking the liberty of resending it...
>
>I don't agree with those who are indicating that an "evaulation" is the
>right way to go here... In fact given what I know about evaluation and
>evaluation contracting in the UN system I would drop the terminology of
>"evaluation" altogether since once it is termed that way and given over
>to the UN to administer there are a range of criteria, standards,
>contracting procedures, and operational processes that move it out of
>anyone (outside the system)'s direct control or capacity to influence.
>
>I would rather use the terminology of "consultative assessment (or
>review) with independent support" or some such.
>
>Please see my original note copied below for a more extensive argument
>concerning this...
>
>MG
>
>---------------------
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>Sent: August 7, 2008 2:11 PM
>To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Jeanette Hofmann'
>Subject: RE: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation]
>
>Based on fairly extensive experience with "evaluation" over many years
>including in the context of the UN system I would observe that as is
>often the case there is an attempt here to shift what is essentially a
>"political" decision (continuation of the IGF) into the technical
>sphere (i.e. evaluation as the "objective determination of the
>achievement of a pre-defined set of (program) goals/objectives").
>
>The problem with doing this is that it generally puts the "political"
>onus on the evaluator/evaluation and thus on the process of
>determination of evaluation criteria and the
>selection/personality/biases of the evaluator.
>
>A tough position for the evaluator for sure but also very tricky in
>terms of ensuring that one's (e.g. IGC's) specific interests are
>adequately represented in the process and the outcome.
>
>On the other hand it is often very useful to have a qualified third
>party draw up the logic models, put the relevant information together,
>interview the various stakeholders and so on.
>
>Another way of proceeding, and one perhaps more in keeping with the
>spirit of the IGF and multistakeholderism would be that the evaluation
>be seen as a multistakeholder "process" rather than the
>"product"/output of a specific evaluator.
>
>The "evaluator" would thus be chosen to inform and support the
>evaluation process with the outcome of this process being a
>recommendation from the participants in the process to the SG rather
>than as being simply the outcome of the evaluator's internal analyses.
>
>MG
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu]
>Sent: August 6, 2008 12:52 AM
>To: Governance
>Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Outside evaluation]
>
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>the MAG has recently discussed potential approaches to the upcoming
>evaluation of the forum. As has been mentioned on this list, there is
>also the option of an outside evaluation. Some MAG members like this
>idea, others expressed reservations.
>
>In the following message to the MAG, Markus outlines the state of
>things, his interpretation of the Tunis Agenda, and the time table for
>the evaluation of the IGF. jeanette
>
>
>Dear colleagues,
>
>In light of the feed-back received we will refrain from posting the
>draft TOR for an external evaluation and asking for comments. Instead,
>we will put the review process in general terms on the agenda for the
>September consultations. The external review will be a sub-item under
>this agenda item.
>
>At this stage, it is useful to start the discussion on the review
>process. Let me add a few thoughts on this issues.
>
>While the Tunis Agenda is fairly precise in this matter, there is
>nevertheless room for interpretation and a need for discussing how the
>paragraphs related to the review need can to be translated into
>action.
>
>A few elements are given:
>
>The actors:
>
>-The Secretary General (he is charged with examining "the desirability
>of the continuation of the Forum")
>
>- Forum participants (they are to be consulted)
>
>- UN Membership: the Member States are to take a decision, based on
>recommendations by the Secretary-General
>
>The timing: para 76 states: "within five years of its creation".
>Presumably, this means the date when the Secretary-General convened the
>first meeting of the Forum, in July 2006. The review therefore needs to
>take place no later than July 2011. However, the Tunis Agenda allows
>for the review to take place earlier. A review process should leave the
>door open and should not prejudge a decision in either way. Should it
>be delayed until the last moment, it would have a negative impact on
>the IGF. A decision in this regard should be taken by the end of 2010
>at the latest, should there be a general desire for a 2011 meeting.
>
>The UN Membership takes decisions in the framework of the annual
>General Assembly which meets each year between September and December.
>Decisions by the GA need to be prepared by subsidiary
>bodies: in this case the CSTD and ECOSOC. For the GA to be able to take
>a decision by the end of 2010, the Secretary-General will need to
>submit his recommendations as part of his annual report on the WSIS
>Follow-up to the CSTD. This report is prepared early each year. The
>elements for the Secretary-General's recommendations therefore need to
>be ready by late 2009.
>
>Para 76 mentions that there is a need for "formal consultations with
>Forum participants". Does this relate to the annual meeting or to the
>regular consultations in Geneva? It would be safe to assume that this
>para relates to the participants at the Forum itself, as this is a far
>broader community than the 'IGF insiders' who attend the Geneva
>meetings. Should this be the general reading of this para, then the
>2009 meeting in Egypt will need to include a slot in the programme for
>these "formal consultations with Forum participants."
>
>This is my reading of the situation. Any other views are welcome. I
>will also ask the legal services of the UN to give us their
>interpretation.
>
>The Tunis Agenda leaves open how the "formal consultations with Forum
>participants" should be prepared and carried out. We thought an
>external input into this process in form of an evaluation could be
>helpful. In any case, we should start "examining the desirability of
>the continuation of the Forum" at the open consultations in May 2009 at
>the latest.
>
>Best regards
>Markus
>
>____________________________________________________________
>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
More information about the Governance
mailing list