[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

[Parminder]

>Rather than predetermining the outcome of the consultation, I think 
there will be a large emphasis on what the process of consultation 
should be, ( and a belief that the >process should determine the outcome 
rather that our thoughts at this stage). Please let me know if you have 
information that suggests otherwise.

Ian

The declared agenda of the consultations is to 'prepare the process', 
however it is my experience that most active players do not make such a 
fine distinction between the process and substantive view - and do start 
contributing their substantive views. In any case, that is how advocacy 
would work. Putting out our views, is not a thing to be done just at one 
point of time. It is important to claim spaces early, identify key 
possible allies, and key dangers, and then work accordingly over the 
period towards IGF 2009, and subsequently in the UN system. It was for 
this reason that we had pro-actively contributed our views about how IGF 
should continue for the synthesis paper for IGF 2008 itself.

While focusing on the main agenda of giving our views on the process, we 
should, in my view, separately, also mention our substantive views, as 
done in the earlier statement. But, yes, the 'process' discussion is 
more important at this point.

Parminder

Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Parminder, while not disagreeing with the substance of what you have 
> suggested below, I think the question is not so much "getting views on 
> the issue of extending the IGF's mandate"
>
>  
>
> The agenda item is "preparing the review process".
>
>  
>
> In the questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat, this is phrased as
>
>  
>
> **"The Tunis Agenda calls on the UN Secretary-General "to examine the 
> desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in consultation with 
> Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make 
> recommendations to the UN membership in the regard". This consultation 
> will have to take place at the Sharm El Sheikh meeting. How should it 
> be prepared?"**
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Rather than predetermining the outcome of the consultation, I think 
> there will be a large emphasis on what the process of consultation 
> should be, ( and a belief that the process should determine the 
> outcome rather that our thoughts at this stage). Please let me know if 
> you have information that suggests otherwise.
>
>  
>
> If that is the case, we should concentrate more on what the process 
> should be. From our previous statement, we have
>
>  
>
> "As mentioned in the TA, 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 may also be very useful 
> to go beyond IGF participants to reach out to other interested 
> stakeholders, who for different reason 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, not due to the fact that they are not impacted by IG and 
> therefore may not have legitimate interest in it, but because of 
> various structural issues. In this context, it is especially important 
> to reach out more to constituencies in developing counties.
>
>  
>
> Since the IGF has had 'development' as a central theme, it is 
> important to make special efforts to reach out to various actors 
> involved in development activity, 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.
>
>  
>
> It is not therefore enough to announce open consultations, but 
> tangible efforts to reach out to different stakeholders and 
> constituencies should be made.
>
>  
>
> If it is found necessary to do a expert evaluation to help the process 
> of review, the process of selecting the 'experts' should be based on 
> transparent rationale, and follow an open and transparent process. It 
> is not advisable to rely on a /pro bono/ evaluation, by any agency 
> that offers it, for such a politically sensitive and important 
> assessment. In selecting 'experts' possible biases should be 
> anticipated and accounted for. Due to the primarily (global) public 
> policy mandate and role of the IGF, 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. "
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I suspect that the discussion will move towards clarifying an 
> acceptable process, and other comments may be left aside for later 
> consideration. In that case, are we happy with our comments from last 
> September or is there something we should add?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Ian Peter
>
> PO Box 429
>
> Bangalow NSW 2479
>
> Australia
>
> Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
>
> www.ianpeter.com
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> *Sent:* 17 January 2009 17:20
> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org
> *Subject:* [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
>
>  
>
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of 
> getting views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue 
> will be considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and 
> later UN's ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information 
> society) mandated that the decision on the issue will be taken in 
> 'consultation with IGF participants'. It is the first time that open 
> consultations will be for 2 days, and the reason for this is that 
> oneday will be exclusively devoted to considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who 
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form 
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in 
> Geneva are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes 
> all process decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations 
> can have important bearing on the process that will be followed in 
> terms of what may constitute 'consultations with forum participants' 
> for deciding on continuation of the IGF. However, I am of the opinion 
> that we should also put in our substantive comments on the 
> continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we 
> will that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, 
> specifically global public policy making in this area. For this 
> reason, not only the IGF should be continued beyond 2010, but it 
> should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that there are two clear, and relatively 
> distinct, mandates of the IGF -  first, regarding public policy 
> functions, as a forum for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and 
> second, regarding capacity building. Both aspects of the IGF's role 
> needs to be strengthened. Especially, one role (for instance, capacity 
> building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy 
> related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently 
> contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate 
> measures should be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis 
> that role.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to 
> be able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global 
> public interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the 
> synthesis paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090117/d86b0be6/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