[governance] CONSENSUS CALL - STATEMENT ON IGF REVIEW

[Jacqueline A. Morris]

Yes, and I like the rework - I too thought that paragraph was a bit 
confusing.
Jacqueline
Babatope Soremi wrote:
> I vote YES with a quick rework of the paragraph Anriette refered to
>
> 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.
>
> On 2/16/09, Hakikur Rahman <email at hakik.org> wrote:
>   
>>  I vote YES.
>>
>>  Hakikur Rahman
>>
>>
>>  At 11:23 PM 2/15/2009, 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
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>  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