[IRP] need quick response IGF Review Questions 4-21-09

[shaila mistry]

Hi Everyone.
This is what I have written in reponse to the IGF Review questions. We have not had much time and I know that they are due today . Please read and let me know if there is something critical that I have left out or gone in the wrong direction . I will submit today .
shaila 
?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions:
?
1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?
? 
The Tunis Agenda has set forth some worthy ambitious and comprehensive goals encompassing participation of all stake holders, funding, and enabling ICTs in developing nations, recognition of needs of special groups. Overall
	* IGF mandate has only begun to be addressed. More time and work and maturation of? effort is needed to enable a thorough assessment and offer recognizable and measurable results? 
	* So far it has only exposed the breadth and scope of work that needs to be done. 
?
?2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
?
Yes it has embodied the principles, t least in spirit. 
The IGF is a unique innovative and exemplary multi-stakeholder experiment that is pioneering innovative ways to address global governance challenges. In order to reach more progress on promoting the WSIS principles it would be important to define concrete outcomes/results for the IGF.
We can embody the WSIS principles better by the improvement of accessibility of participation in due process, by those in developing nations and rural regions. Also participation can be exponentially improved by enhancing remote participation processes. 
We have begun this in the Hyderabad Summit. 
?3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
?
	* Yes it impacted us by serving as an impetus?and motivator for?participation .
	* Forced us to review, discuss ?and present our perspectives for consideration 
	* Yes it is a catalytic in that the right groups of people came together to exchange views. 
	* More ongoing work is needed 
	* We have begun to include contributions from groups that we would not have heard from.
?
?4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations? 
?
?The entire IGF process though reasonable can be seen as quite complex, so there is a danger of it not being understood by all those who are not directly in the ICT field or in academia. In order to ensure that full participation we need to make the processes simpler and accessible that is clearly understood by?We need to hear from all these sectors in order to include key perspectives.
?
In respect to the MAG and especially the dynamic coalitions need more recognition and support .Currently? they receive very little organizational and virtually no monetary support, which hinders them to make more progress. 
?
The transparency of all IGF processes and especially the open consultations are commendable.


?
5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year mandate, and why/why not?
?
Yes it should continue
?
	* Because the work has just began and is by no means completed done 
	* This is critical on going work shaping and governing the future in communications and even existence
	* Not all participants have had been heard because issues of participation
	* Participants have not been given full representations 
?The IGF should be a sustainable deliberation and policy think tank allowing for the emergence of reasonable policies and global harmonization of policies, as well as hands-on initiatives.
?
?
6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and processes?
?
	1. Better representation at all levels 
	2. Better inclusion of critical stake holders such as the private sector. Not just multi nationals but also small business stake holders who represent almost half and in some case more than half the business community. 
	3. Perhaps more regional meetings based on continents or clusters of countries in close geographical proximity. This would enable greater discussion more frequently 
	4. Some sort of rapporteur system so the we are receiving a ongoing year to date summary of what has occurred. There is so much to absorb that it is easy to miss things and thus lose thread of what is going on 
	5. Assumption that we are all at the same technical skill level, which we are not .Yet we the decision makers and leaders are deeply affected by the decision made a very small group of ICT folks. We need to enable and understand each other ?
	6. support for dynamic coalitions
	7. Better IGF (online) facilities to allow for extended remote participation
exploiting the same online collaboration environment a much better structured and supported preparation and follow-up of the on going event. 


?
?7. Do you have any other comments?
?Move faster 
	* Work towards tangible results 
	* More responsive over all 
	* Respect small business better participation and voices 
	* Treat civil society better participation at all levels and keep informed better 
	* Funding for developing nations to participate 
	* Development of? projects 
	* Solicit youth involvement 
	* Listening to grass root perspectives 
?
Shaila Rao?Mistry, 
?Input Technology With?A Human Touch
Jayco Interface Technology, Inc.
Jayco mmi, Inc.
www.jaycopanels.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/pipermail/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org/attachments/20090421/a6713d56/attachment-0001.htm>