[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

[Ian Peter]

I've been reviewing the inputs under this topic against the synthesis paper
we prepared and submitted last September (attached by Parminder earlier,
also available from http://www.igcaucus.org/node/6 )

What I read suggests that our statement adopted last September stands up
pretty well and is a good basis for February consultations. However in terms
of added emphasis and new content, I draw your attention to the following

>From Parminder

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. 

Do we agree with this summary?

Again from Parminder

The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to
carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest.

And from Jeanette

Our recommendations should emphasize that the IGF needs its mandate extended
so that it can evolve. The small secretariat with its direct connection to
New York has been a successful arrangement that provides flexibility. I
think it is important that no other UN organization gets involved in the
IGF's management.


Any thoughts on this?



Most other comments seem to be effectively covered - are there any
additional thoughts not in our last submission or not covered above? We
should move towards a synthesis paper draft shortly.





Ian Peter
PO Box 429
Bangalow NSW 2479
Australia
Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773
www.ianpeter.com
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com]
> Sent: 20 January 2009 00:05
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> 
> This also sets in the space to be utilized by the Developing Countries
> instead of a single side intervention by the Developed. I also agree
> that a more powerful representation participates at IGF but again the
> minority with the right mix of people from all three multistakeholder
> partners creates the right power to represent a country. Regional
> level IG groups should also be identified so that country level
> participation can be a real reality.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM, jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > Dear Parminder and all
> >
> > I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be added between (2) and
> (3)
> > : IG and Developinng Countries.
> >
> > So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these countries or from
> > industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue to be given its
> > right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are two main
> > themes related to this issue :
> > (1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some representatives of a
> > minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in the discussions
> on
> > IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;
> > (2) Taking in account the spatial extension of the critical Internet
> > resources, first of all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and
> IXP,
> > in order to provide the  affordability to Internet access and services
> for
> > these countries.
> >
> > Respecting that, the third point you raise should also encompass the
> > financing of both these themes.
> >
> > All the best
> > Jean-Louis Fullsack
> >
> > ---- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: Parminder
> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20 AM
> > 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
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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

____________________________________________________________
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