[governance] Open Consultation issues: IGF review revisited

[Ian Peter]

>From the MAG summary just posted - and those present may want to contribute
more information - the review does not seem to have been discussed, except
that there will be an IGF session devoted to it. End of story?
 
Rights and Principles seems to have dropped right off the agenda as well -
(except for WSIS principles which is something else). Perhaps again those
present at MAG might be able to clarify whether this was even raised by
anyone present. Clearly again it was raised and supported at OC but the MAG
summary doesn't even mention it.

Interested in more information on this so we can determine next steps.


Ian Peter

On 18/05/09 11:59 PM, "Ginger Paque" <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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


____________________________________________________________
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