[governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

Thu Sep 4 02:44:30 EDT 2014

Am 03.09.14 14:21, schrieb Pranesh Prakash:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the
>> permanent mandate of the IGF
>
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should
> push for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really
> going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA
> contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far,
> though the analogy is not perfect).

I think the analogy is somewhat misleading because it does not take into 
account the internal logics and dynamics of UN evaluation processes. The 
intergovernmental WSIS +10, a real u-turn in terms of  multistakeholder 
approaches but an important context for the evaluation of the IGF, 
offers a good example of those logics.

What I mean to say is that the 5 years mandate of the IGF does not 
provide for the kind of evaluation of the IGF that most people find 
necessary. It would be good to see the IGF reviewed on its own terms.
Do you really trust the UN to do this?
Given the terms of the WSIS+10, how likely is it to convince the UN to 
make the IGF evaluation process "more participative
 > and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder"?

I also agree with Stephanie that it would be good to think about review 
or evaluation mechanisms that are able to hold the IGF secretariat and 
the MAG to account.

All the questions you raise below are good ones but I think what you 
seem to imply is wrong. A thorough and comprehensive analysis would find 
more evidence for the IGF's impact than you see.

jeanette

   I would support making the
> evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative
> and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
> I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its
> mandate before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:
>
>    * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the
> stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>    * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from
> the use and misuse of the Internet?
>    * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant
> bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>    * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their
> purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this
> interfacing?
>
> I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I think
> for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the
> IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish
> to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF
> permanent.  I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and
> finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing
> stability to the IGF than making it permanent would.
>
> Apologies for sounding an off-note.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able
>> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a
>> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days
>> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an
>> all inclusive statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>       http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t