[governance] Input-2 for synthesis paper

[Parminder]

McTim

 

> I want, as I think, as usual, the rhetoric is too strong.

> McTim

 

I have sent the link to you with right to edit the doc.

 

Others who want to edit may also please ask. 

 

The draft as it stands can be seen below.

 

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 Tunis Agenda, 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. In
this context, it is especially important to reach out more to constituencies
in developing counties. 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. 

 

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. 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'.  

 

Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure 

 

On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of
the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond
its first mandated period of five years. 

 

The Caucus agrees with the mandate given to the IGF by TA. We understand
that the mandate is ambitious and complex, and 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 IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in
the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
controversial an issue, more appropriate it may be to bring it to the IGF
whereinputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought. Outcomes
from deliberations at the IGF can be used for global Internet policy making,
which will help make policy-making processes more participative and
democratic. 

 

The 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
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dg8948rv_0fwg6ndg2&justBody=fal
se&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220512245646&editMode=true&strip=true#_ftn1>
[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.

 

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.

 




  _____  

 
<http://docs.google.com/RawDocContents?docID=dg8948rv_0fwg6ndg2&justBody=fal
se&revision=_latest&timestamp=1220512245646&editMode=true&strip=true#_ftnref
1> [1] To mention some of them. 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080904/dfa54e09/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