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

[YJ Park]

Vote YES.
YJ
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080912/ed441442/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