[IRP] need quick response IGF Review Questions 4-21-09
M.I.Franklin
M.I.Franklin
Fri Apr 24 11:57:29 EEST 2009
Dear All
I agree with Anja's underscoring of the point Graciela has raised.
Inclusion is not only a principle - and a right arguably - but also needs
to be put into practice at all levels. May as well start with ourselves!
Cheers
MF
--On 24 April 2009 14:33 +0530 Anja Kovacs <anja at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 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-internetr
>>> ightsandprinciples.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> IRP mailing list
>> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
>> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetri
>> ghtsandprinciples.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
> _______________________________________________
> IRP mailing list
> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org
> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrig
> htsandprinciples.org
Dr Marianne Franklin
Reader/Convener of the Transnational Communications & Global Media Program
Media & Communications
Goldsmiths, University of London
New Cross
London SE14 6NW
United Kingdom
Tel (direct): #44 (0)207 919-7072
Fax: #44 (0) 207 919-7616
email: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin.php
http://www.goldsmiths.ac.uk/pg/ma-transnational-communications-global-media.php
More information about the IRP
mailing list