AW: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW

[wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at]

 I like the statement.
 
Wolfgang Benedek

________________________________

Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Gesendet: Mo 16.02.2009 00:23
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW



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

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090216/bbcf1160/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