[governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper

Tue Sep 2 03:33:48 EDT 2008

The document has also been put on Google docs. All those who want to edit it
please let me or Ian know. Thanks. Parminder 

  _____  

From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] 
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 9:25 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper

Hi All

The initial proposal was to give IGC's submission to the IGF Hyderabad
synthesis paper on two subjects. One on 'rights and the Internet' has
already been proposed. 

A draft for a second input on the crucial issue of 'review of the IGF' is
proposed for member's consideration as below. Thanks.  Parminder 

IGC's input -2 to the synthesis paper for IGF, Hyderabad.

Review of the IGF

The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "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, we have two sets of comments. One set is
regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another
consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of
the IGF.

Process of review 

As mentioned in the TA, the process of review should be centered on
consultations with Forum (IGF) participants. These consultations should be
both formal and informal. It is important to lay out clear formal processes,
apart from informal ones. It may also be very useful to go beyond IGF
participants to reach out to other interested stakeholders, who for
different reason may not attend the IGF meetings. 

In reaching out, the process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, not
due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and therefore may not have
legitimate interest in it, but because of various structural issues. In this
context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies in
developing counties. 

Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is important to
make special efforts to reach out to various actors involved in development
activity, including those of civil society. Other groups with lower
participation in IG issues like women, ethnic minorities and disability
groups should also be especially reached out to. 

It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but tangible
efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and constituencies should be
made. 

If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process of
review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on
transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It is not
advisable to rely on a pro bono evaluation, by any agency that offers it,
for such a politically sensitive and important assessment. In selecting
'experts' possible biases should be anticipated and accounted for. Due to
the primarily (global) public policy mandate and role of the IGF, the
selected experts should have adequate expertise in matter of global public
policy and policy institutions. In view of the geo-political significance of
IG, it may be useful to have a reputed public policy institution in the
global South do the evaluation in partnership with one such institution from
the North. Even if reliance on existing global institutions is sought, there
should be adequate balancing of perspectives, and partnerships are a good
way to ensure it. 

It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest,
preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a
workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one
with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should
feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'.  IGC offers
its assistance in organizing this main session on the basis of its work in
this area, including that which it will undertake for its proposed workshop
in Hyderabad. IGC also offers all help in reaching out to civil society
actors and constituencies for a comprehensive process of review of the IGF,
and will like to be formally associated with the review process in this
regard. 

Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure 

To the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of
the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF is a very important
global institution in the global IG space, as well a bold new experiment in
global policy landscape, and therefore it should continue indefinitely
beyond its first mandated period of five years. 

The Caucus also completely agrees with the mandate given to the IGF by TA,
and the context of its establishing. We understand that the mandate is
ambitious and complex, whereby a process of evolution towards its complete
fulfillment may be needed. However, it is important to keep an eye on the
full mandate as we go forward, and continuously make progress in achieving
in its letter and intent. 

It is important that as a deliberative forum IGF remains open to addressing
all issues that are in the IG space. Very likely, more controversial is an
issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF where it can be
handled by use of reason, mutual understating and accommodation. Outcomes
from deliberations at the IGF can, thereupon, be used for global Internet
policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more
participative and democratic. 

Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at the
national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note
that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape[1].
IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal
relationships with these initiatives. However, this should be done in a
manner that expands the multi-stakeholder nature of global internet policy
institutional framework rather than narrows it. Since the fear of
governmental domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF
should use global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its
assistance to the IGC in this regard.

As Internet policy issues become more complex and demanding the role of the
IGF is expected to considerably grow, within its existing mandate, from the
largely cautious 'stakeholders perspectives/ differences matching' and
'bringing the parties to the table' roles that it performs at present. A
greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is already
becoming evident. It is important in this regard for the IGF to have a more
substantive inter-sessional work program rather than just of planning for
the annual IGF event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to
operate in substantive themes based Working Groups, and also incorporating
outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this direction is
expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby WGs of MAG
members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main sessions. This
useful start should be taken forward for more structured AND substantive
inter-sessional work. 

As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have
stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of
special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such
funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of
the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional
activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the
IGF across geographies and social groups. 

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few
years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where
different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different
orientations and expectations of the secretariat.  A lot of the IGF
secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is
very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that
they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this
unique global institution.

  _____  

  _____  

[1] To mention some of them. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080902/9d11fa6e/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