[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW

[Carlos Afonso]

Yes in general terms. I think we should have been more specific on the
evaluation format. Shouldn't we stress that the twin evaluators be
non-profit, academic or research institutions of known expertise and
independence (hard to find...)? But this will generate discussion, so
let us keep the way it is.

A small typo: "constituencies in developing countRies" instead of
"constituencies in developing counties."

--c.a.

Ian Peter wrote:
> We now need to wrap this up for presentation in Geneva next week. Please
> indicate either YES or NO to the statement below in response to this
> message.
> 
>  
> 
> If you are responding NO and can outline why you are opposed, that would be
> helpful. We may still be able to accommodate small amendments if necessary.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> STATEMENT
> 
>  
> 
> 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.
> 
>  
> 
> IGC believes that a structured analysis of the performance of IGF,
> accompanied by a suitable methodology for consultation, analysis, and
> stakeholder input. is important to the credibility and the usefulness of the
> IGF review. We suggest that either the MAG or a specially appointed
> represented multistakeholder group be tasked with overseeing the process and
> making recommendations based on this analysis.
> 
>  
> 
> In order to demonstrate that the analysis is both objective and transparent,
> it should be conducted by a body or bodies that are independent from the IGF
> and its active stakeholders (including the United Nations). 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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 

____________________________________________________________
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