[governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited

Ginger Paque gpaque at gmail.com
Mon May 18 09:59:42 EDT 2009


Hi everyone,
I am finally off of an airplane for the moment, and hope to be coherent. 
At the OC I read the IGC statement on Internet Rights and Principles, as 
well as the previous statement on the IGF Review process.  Once the 
official summary is out, we can discuss more effectively, but I thank 
those who have already begun the Internet rights and principles discussion.

The other strong point of interest for the IGC, in my opinion is the 
evaluation of the IGF process. Nitin Desai stated quite clearly that 
there is not sufficient time to do an external evaluation of the IGF 
process, one point we made in our statement. The other point we made is 
that stakeholders not represented in the IGF itself must be consulted:

"The process of consultations should especially keep in mind 
constituencies that have lesser participation in IG issues at present, 
such as constituencies in developing countries including those of civil 
society. Other interested groups with lower participation in IG issues 
like women, ethnic minorities and disability groups should also be 
specifically approached."

Desai responded by commenting that we cannot ask for evaluation from 
people who are not familiar with the process.

At the moment, I did not have an answer to that: those of us who are 
involved have opportunities for input through statements, the 
questionnaire, the IGF forum, emails to the secretariat, even YouTube 
and Facebook. Those who follow the IGF enough to have an informed voice 
can use these tools as well, even if they were not present at the IGF.

So how would we in fact, assess the efficacy and impact of the IGF 
process on non-represented stakeholders? If we think these voices should 
be gathered, how could that be done? If we can come up with a way to do 
it, we should suggest it. For the moment, I am stymied. It seems to me 
that each of us must make sure we are representing our stakeholder 
groups. If we are serious about this request in the evaluation, I think 
we must come up with a possible mechanism.

Any thoughts? Best, Ginger

____________________________________________________________
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



More information about the Governance mailing list