[governance] Consensus call on IGF review - YESor NO response required

[Jeremy Malcolm]

YES

On 12/09/2008, at 5:59 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

> Here is the second statement we have been preparing, and the less
> controversial one. Again, a YES or NO response is required within 48  
> hours
> to meet the Secretariat's deadline.
>
>
> 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 will also be
> necessary to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other  
> interested
> stakeholders, who for different reasons 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, including constituencies in developing counties 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 should be open and transparent. It is not
> advisable to rely solely 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.
>
>
>
> 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, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to
> the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be  
> sought.
> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs 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. IGF should further encourage such processes and seek to
> establish formal relationships with these initiatives. 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
> evident to some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an
> inter-sessional work program in addition planning for the annual IGF
> event. It will be useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Ian Peter
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
> <message-footer.txt>



-- 
Jeremy Malcolm LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open Source lawyer, IT consultant, actor
host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

____________________________________________________________
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