[governance] IGF review

[Kabani]

Greetings Park,


Thank you and friends for wonderful work you all are doing in the field of
IG, we believe that IGF review process as you have mentioned would be
chaired by UN Official form UNHQ NY, we suggest that this its time we
do  SWOT Analysis on the process, IGF, MAG that can be support in formal
consultations we at ISD-RC, Geneva would like to offer you expertise
(voluntary) with support from all of you. Please feel free to contact. Again
thanking you all for your kindness's and cooperation.


With Best Regards


Sincerely


Asif Kabani
email: kabani.asif at gmail.com



2009/5/22 YJ Park <yjpark21 at gmail.com>

> Hi Ginger and Ian,
>
> Thank you for your drawing attention to IGF Review for our next step. I
> would like to pass the following clarifications made by IGF secretariat
> today in the MAG list.
>
>    - The "formal consultations" will take place in Sharm El Sheikh.
>    - They will be chaired by a senior UN official from UNHQ in New York.
>    - These consultations will be prepared in an online process.
>    - All stakeholders are encouraged to submit their comments, either by
>    responding to the questionnaire we have posted or by sending in free form
>    comments.
>    - All contributions received will be summarized in a synthesis document
>    that will be submitted in all six UN languages as an input into the
>    consultations, so that participants have some 'food for thought' they can
>    comment on.
>    - Contributions received after 15 July will still be posted.
>    - The preparatory process does not prejudge the consultations that will
>    take place in Sharm.
>    - The Secretary-General will make his recommendations "on the
>    desirability of the continuation of the Forum" based on the consultations in
>    Sharm, as stipulated by the Tunis agenda.
>
> As Ginger pointed out, as of today, we have a big task of how we can
> embrace the perspectives of those who are not participating in the IGF
> process as of today with many reasons.
>
> Given the limited time, I am afraid whether it is possible to liaise those
> who are not in the process with the IGF review process if our voices are to
> be reflected in the Synthesis paper (15 July) for further discussion in
> Sharm El Sheikh.
>
> Hope this clarifies your concerns in IGF Review!
> YJ
>
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 10:59 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
>
>


-- 
Visit: www.kabani.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090523/a8ac5099/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