AW: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

Sat Jan 17 05:04:04 EST 2009

Dear list

Do not underestimate the discussion in the UNCSTD. This body got the mandate from the Tunis Summitt to coordinate the WSIS Follow up, and the IGF is part if this. The last UNCSTD adopted a quite friendly resolution which labled the IGF as an "innovative platform" (para. 18 / see also para. 27) http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_r004_en.pdf)

The UNCSTD sends recommendations to the ECOSOC. ECOSOC is the crucial body in the UN system which send the messages to the UNSG and the UN General Assembly. And what you need at the end of the process is a UN GA resolution in 2010. To ignore the mechanics of this process would be a strategic mistake. 

My understanding is that the UNCSTD has opened - for a short period (based on an ECOSOC Resolution) its meetings to WSIS accredited entities (but without voting rights). http://www.unctad.org/sections/wcmu/docs//ecn162008_r002_en.pdf

>From this constellation there are two conclusions for the CS IGC:

1. to prepare a clear and precise statement with reasonable receommednations for the forthcoming UNCSTD meeting (which is probably again in May 2009 in Geneva)

2. to identify "friendly governmental representatives" in the UNCSTD which share to a certain degree the values, principles and visions of the CS IGC (and there are a lot of these "friends of the CS" in this group). 

The forthcoming IGF consultations in Geneva in February 2009 could be a good opportunity to do something. One option could be that CS IGC participants invite governmental participants during one of the lunch breaks for an informal consultation. Communication is key. However, you need substance if you want to communicate. With other words you have to know what you want to achieve. And here we have still some miles to go.  

Regards

wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Gesendet: Sa 17.01.2009 09:49
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Parminder'
Betreff: RE: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

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 

____________________________________________________________
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