[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW

[Fouad Bajwa]

I vote yes but also support Bapatope's and Anriette's reference:

" The process of consultations should especially keep in mind
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present,
including constituencies in developing counties  such as but not
limited to civil society, women-focused groups, ethnic minorities and
disability groups, ccTLDs as well as other IG interest groups/stakeholders".

I would also recommend to keep the IGF evaluation process an
Independent and Open one.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 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
>
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
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