[governance] Draft Statement for Comments - IGF Review

[Ian Peter]

I'm looking here to finalise our comments on the IGF review process, which
will be delivered in spoken form at the February consultation. I will post
separately for comments a draft statement on the role and mandate of IGF.

 

However, before finalising the summary of what I think we have agreed on to
date, let me add another thought and see if it has general support here or
not - if not, we can go with what is below which we have largely agreed to
already.

 

I believe there will be widespread opposition to an outside consultancy
making specific recommendations as an independent body for stakeholders to
accept or reject. Rather, I believe the outside consultancy is necessary
only to provide a structured analysis of the performance of IGF, providing a
structured methodology for consultation, analysis, and stakeholder input. I
believe such a study is important to the credibility and the usefulness of
the IGF review.

 

I do not think the outside consultancy should make independent
recommendations however. I believe it should present its findings to either
MAG or some other specifically tasked multistakeholder committee managing
the review, with the multistakeholder body being tasked with making
appropriate recommendations based on the findings.

 

That sits better for me as a methodology and way forward. Interested in
whether IGC would like to propose something along these lines.

 

Draft follows

Process of review (without inclusion of this specific suggestion)

 

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 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.

 

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 an 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. There should be adequate balancing of
perspectives, including global North/South perspectives, and partnerships
are a good way to ensure it.

 

 

Ian Peter

PO Box 429

Bangalow NSW 2479

Australia

Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773

www.ianpeter.com

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090202/bda4afc4/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