[IRP] need quick response IGF Review Questions 4-21-09
Anja Kovacs
anja
Fri Apr 24 12:03:47 EEST 2009
Hi all,
Thank you, Shaila, for drafting the review comments. This is a very
valuable input into the review process.
I would like to extend my support to the comments that Graciela
submitted on Tuesday though. The point that greater representation of
small businesses is necessary within the private sector constituency is,
of course, a very valid and important one. But it remains equally
important to stress the need for wider inclusion of civil society actors
in general, and from countries in the South in particular. I realise
that it may be too late to add these points to the IPR DC contribution
now (although workshop proposals could be edited until a day after
submission, so perhaps it can still be done?), but hope that we agree
that it is important for the IRP DC to push these points when future
occasions present themselves.
Best wishes,
Anja
Graciela Selaimen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks, Shaila, for this valuable input.
> I have only three considerations. In the answer to question 6:
>
> 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.
>
> I think that if this is going to be presented in the name of this DC,
> we shouldn't mention just the private sector as an example of a
> critical stakeholder. Local NGOs, community media, human rights
> activists, are some - among several other critical stakeholders - that
> should also be mentioned.
>
> In regards to question 7:
>
> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>
> Move faster
>
> * Treat civil society better participation at all levels and keep
> informed better - I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you mean here
>
> * Funding for developing nations to participate - I suggest that the
> text says 'funding for different stakeholders from developing
> nations to participate .
>
> I stress once more - please, take my comments into consideration only
> if this is going to be presented in the name of the IRP DC.
>
> best,
> Graciela
>
>
> Max Senges escreveu:
>> hi shaila
>>
>> i like your answers - please submit in our name if there are no more
>> comments
>>
>> best
>> max
>>
>> < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : >
>>
>> Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
>> committed citizens can change the world.
>> Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
>> ?----------------------Margaret Mead
>>
>> < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : >
>>
>> Dr. Max Senges
>> Chair Internet Rights and Principles Coalition
>>
>> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> <http://www.internetrightsandprinciples.org>
>>
>> < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : >
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 7:42 PM, shaila mistry <shailam at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:shailam at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html>?
>>
>> 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
>> <http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/geneva/official/dop.html>?
>>
>> 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 <http://www.jaycopanels.com/>
>>
>>
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org
>
>
--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
Senior Research Associate
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel: (00-91-80) 2665 4134, 2653 6890
www.ITforChange.net
www.IS-Watch.net
http://India.IS-Watch.net
More information about the IRP
mailing list