[governance] February consultations - review of IGF: Remote Participation

Mon Jan 5 16:31:02 EST 2009

Note, I propose the following idea as a member of the IGC, not as
co-coordinator:

I think this is a pivotal moment for the IGF and that the IGC should make a
short, concise statement, perhaps based on the previous one, with the
intention of supporting the process and defending it from detractors in the
best possible way: pointing out its success so far, and proposing concrete,
substantial change for progress on issues and on the process itself.

Since this is a moment to suggest substantial changes for the improvement of
the process, I ask that the IGC discuss the possibility to suggest a strong
commitment to strengthening the remote participation facet of the IGF, based
on the increasing foundation established by the IGF Secretariat in each of
the three IGFs so far.  While far from perfect, the RP in Hyderabad was
impressive, and sets a precedent for multistakeholderism and inclusion of
regional contributions to the IGF and other processes. In addition, RP has
the significant stimulus of discussion of IGF and local and regional
projects that do not depend on the central IGF process alone. This can
catalyze an increase in the speed of effects of productive IG at the
regional, local and grassroots levels which is otherwise much slower to take
place, under the umbrella and guidance of the IGF principles.

This change in priority for the IGF should go hand in hand with the
promotion of Remote Participation as a principal emerging issue for the
constructive application of IGF and HR issues in an organized way.

The RP Working Group is writing a report on the Hyderabad experience, and we
will have it as soon as possible.

Thanks. I look forward to a discussion on this possibility.

Saludos, Ginger

  _____  

De: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] 
Enviado el: Lunes, 05 de Enero de 2009 04:31 p.m.
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Asunto: [governance] February consultations - review of IGF

One of the major topics for the February 23-24 consultations in Geneva is
the Review of IGF, and if possible we should make a statement on this.

Below is our earlier statement on this subject which we should review and
improve if possible. I think we should bear in mind that the consultation
will be more interested in the process of the review - our earlier statement
addressed both the process and what we believe should be the outcome. I
think we should concentrate now on how the review should proceed rather than
what its findings should be.

Any comments on the text below? We should try to arrive at a common position
if possible by mid February.

Our earlier statement - 

The Tunis Agenda (TA) calls for examining "the desirability of the
continuation of the Forum in formal consultation with Forum participants,
within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN
Membership..". In this regard, we have two sets of comments. One set is
regarding the process of the 'examining' or review of the IGF, and another
consists of our substantive comments on the role, mandate and structure of
the IGF.

Process of review

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 is important to lay out clear formal
processes, apart from informal ones. 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.

In reaching out, 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 a 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. Even if reliance on existing global
institutions is sought, there should be adequate balancing of perspectives,
and partnerships are a good way to ensure it.

It is important that the process of review starts at the earliest,
preferably with the forthcoming IGF meeting in Hyderabad. IGC held a
workshop on 'role and mandate of the IGF' at Rio (see
http://intgovforum.org/Rio_event_report.php?mem=30 ), and plans another one
with the same title in Hyderabad. The outcomes from this workshop should
feed into the main workshop on 'Taking stock and going forward'.

Substantive comments on the IGF mandate, role and structure

On the basic question of the review about desirability of continuation of
the IGF, the Caucus is of the firm view that the IGF should continue beyond
its first mandated period of five years.

It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that are in
the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the more
controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring it to the
IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be sought.

Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet policy
making, which will help make policy-making processes more participative and
democratic.

The Tunis agenda calls for "development of multi-stakeholder processes at
the national, regional.. level" similar to the IGF. It is heartening to note
that some such national and regional processes are already taking shape. IGF
should further encourage such processes and seek to establish formal
relationships with these initiatives. Since the fear of governmental
domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use global
civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC offers its
assistance to the IGF in this regard.

A greater need for the IGF to get deeper in substantive issues is evident to
some. It is desirable in this regard for the IGF to have an inter-sessional
work program in addition planning for the annual IGF event. It will be
useful for this purpose for the MAG to operate in Working Groups, and also
incorporating outside expertise in these WGs as required. Some start in this
direction is expected to be made in the run-up to IGF, Hyderabad, whereby
WGs of MAG members plus some outsiders are expected to prepare for main
sessions.

As a global policy related institution it is important for the IGF to have
stable public funding, and to insulate itself against any possibility of
special interests influencing its working through control over funding. Such
funding should not only enable appropriate and streamlined functioning of
the IGF secretariat, the annual event and other proposed and inter-sessional
activities, it should also be used to ensure equity in participation in the
IGF across geographies and social groups.

We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the last few
years, on a very thin resource base, and in difficult conditions where
different stakeholder groups involved in the IGF have very different
orientations and expectations of the secretariat. A lot of the IGF
secretariat's work is indeed path-breaking in the UN system. However, it is
very evident that the secretariat needs much better resource support that
they have at present, if we are to fulfill all our expectations from this
unique global institution.

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/20090105/6c5f8d21/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