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

[ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com]

Yes..

Well done IGF contribution - a rich endorsement of the open,
transparent, representative, material, timely, deep, sweeping,
inclusive, substantive, and more ...  (the original far superior of
course to this brief list of projected feature markers)..

Thanking you.
LDMF.

On 9/11/08, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at malcolm.id.au> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
For further I.D.:
Communications Coordination Committee for the U.N.
CONGO Education Committee
Annual U.N. DPI NGO Conference Planning Committee & Sub-Committes.
National Disability Party
International Disability Caucus
Persons with Pain International
WSIS, IGF, CFP onsite participant.
2007 Nominee: Global Alliance for ICT Strategy Council
Invitee, Harvard and Yale Meetings on ICT rights / Development / Law.
Member Assoc. Computing Machinery./ American Bar Assn, Trigeminal Neuralia Assn.
U.N. Mental Health Committee SubComittee on ICT.
4+ decades on Internet and Prior Nets
Reearch Asst.G.A. Resolutions in Our Changing World.
Other Affiliations on Request.
____________________________________________________________
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