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

[Milton L Mueller]

I vote YES on the review statement

> 
> 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
____________________________________________________________
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