[governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited

[Kabani]

Ginger,
Thank you for the Sharing our view in OC meeting, Perhaps we should start
the process of discussing the future course of action as per May OC meeting
to prepare plan of action for Sep
OC.
With Best Regards
Sincerely
Asif Kabani

2009/5/18 Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>

> 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
>
>


-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090518/10d5f1c9/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