The following text is excerpted from an ongoing discussion on the IGF Advisory Group mailing list. The only changes made relate to an effort to anonymize the comments in respect of the Chatham House rule. The discussion took place between 16 - 28 July, 2008. (Writer A) Thanks for sorting this out. Any news from APC -- I am certain they only intend to offer the single workshop for the main session. Their "Promoting pro-poor access to ICTs" proposal should be stand alone, it reflects a project and is not really suitable for merging. I'm also a bit confused about numbers. If I remember correctly 101 proposals were submitted in response to the original call. 22 are now listed as merging to join main session workshops, and 84 are left as stand alone. 84+22 gives 106 not 101, which is not the direction we'd hoped for with merging etc! Or is the problem with my maths (highly likely!) (Markus Kummer) Dear Writer A, A quick response to your two points: Our table reflected what APC proposed. You have a point - why don't you discuss this with APC? As regards numbers: there were some who did not manage to upload their proposal, but had submitted it via email in time. We did not capture all of these within the deadline, but now we do. Hence the discrepancy. Best regards Markus (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, There was some confusion between us and APC - my apologies. While they are keen to be part of the main workshop on access and ready to merge one of their workshops, they would like to maintain the other proposal as a stand alone workshop. My request therefore is to consider their workshop entitled "Promoting pro-poor access to ICTs as a proposal for a stand-alone workshop and include it in your marking. Our Web site will be corrected accordingly. Thanks to Writer A for alerting us to this misunderstanding Best regards Markus (Writer A) Dear Markus, colleagues. I can confirm APC intend to offer their proposed workshop on mobile telephony as one to merge and begin discussions for the main session workshop, but they wish to retain the pro-poor workshop as a stand-alone activity. Explaining this, Karen Banks wrote: At 4:28 PM +0100 7/16/08, karen banks wrote: >APC would be happy to drop the mobile telephony workshop - but, we >would prefer not to lose the pro-poor workhop. > >The pro-poor workshop will being together policy makers, community >practictioners and regulators who will have been working through the >year in developing a pro-poor access advocacy kit, built on >experience and lessons from the past few years work. The kit will be >ready for the IGF - at least in draft form - as we see the IGF as >the perfect platform to launch the kit and discussion. So, we hope >we can keep this workshop. So we need the workshop description for "Promoting pro-poor access to ICTs" back on the website so MAG member can include it in their evaluation. I've sent a note to Emmanuel about this. APC also have another workshop to drop: At 4:28 PM +0100 7/16/08, karen banks wrote: > >We can however offer a drop on this one!.. The APC WNSP will work >with the COE and UNESCO (as per our earlier discusisons) to help >shape one of the main sessions and is happy to drop it's sexual >rights and the internet workshop ( >http://www.intgovforum.org/workshops_08/showmelist.php?mem=97) > So this workshop name should be moved to the page under the "Promoting Cybersecurity and Trust-Fostering Security Privacy and Openness" main session workshop merging workshop discussion batch. MAG members do not need to evaluate this workshop. I also heard from Tony Vetter that IISD and TERI intended to merge their workshops: TERI IISD. Have they made this clear to the secretariat? Tony edited their (IISD) workshop description to reflect this so I think we can take it as "official". And thanks for the explanation about workshop numbers. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, Good news from Valerie: she confirmed that infoDev is ready to carry out the outside evaluation as an input into the broad-based review process stipulated by the Tunis Agenda. I am very pleased about this cooperation. InfoDev has much credibility in this area, as monitoring and evaluation are among its core competencies. We worked out some draft Terms of Reference (ToR) which I attach to this email for your consideration. Please let us know by 1 August if you have any comments. We will then incorporate your suggestions into a revised document which we will post on our Web site with a request for comments. Depending on the response, we will revise the ToR once again prior to the Open Consultations on 16 September. They will be finalized in light of the discussions during that meeting. The contractor chosen for the evaluation by infoDev would then have the opportunity to interview participants at the Hyderabad meeting. The evaluation report should be ready by end of March 2009 and could thus be discussed during the May meetings. Valerie - who asked me to convey her greetings to the MAG - welcomes the views and contributions of MAG members. She points out that the draft TOR in their present form are manageable, focused and can be delivered within the timeframe set for the evaluation. She says she would like to keep the TOR scoped carefully, prioritized and focused and would advise against adding too many deliverables for the process, as this would inflate costs and could possibly delay its completion against the timeframe set. In other words, we are not looking for what Valerie calls 'a long laundry list of ideas', but for more conceptual inputs. Best regards Markus ATTACHMENT: IGF-TOR.21.07.2008.doc Terms of Reference – IGF external review Introduction These Terms of Reference (ToR) are for an external review of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The Tunis Agenda , adopted at the second phase of WSIS in 2005 (TA) calls on the Secretary General to conduct a review process within five years of the IGF's creation. It also calls for formal consultation with Forum participants. TA-76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. The external review, and its subsequent report, is intended as an input into that formal consultation. The external review should be based on an examination of the mandate of the IGF as documented in Paragraphs 72 – 82 of the TA as well as on how well the IGF has met the expectations of the Internet stakeholders and in particular, achieved the development impact it was created for. The results of the external review will serve as a substantial component of the formal consultation required in TA Paragraph 76. Evaluation Criteria The external evaluation is to examine the following broad questions: ? To what extent has the IGF adhered to the substantive mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda and complied with WSIS principles? ? What has the impact of the IGF been, both in direct and indirect terms? What has the impact been, most particularly, on developing countries? ? What are various stakeholders' expectations of the IGF and to what extent have these expectations been met? ? How effective are IGF processes, including the functioning of the MAG, Secretariat and open consultations? How could these be improved? ? What is the most appropriate funding model for the IGF to fulfil the expectations of its stakeholders? ? How desirable it is to continue the IGF past its original five-year mandate, in the view of its stakeholders? If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, should it be continued in its present form? What changes should be made? 1. Review Methodology 2. The bid should discuss the methodology to be used and include prototypes of proposed survey instrument(s). It is expected to combine several of the following elements: ? Interviews with a representative selection of stakeholders, especially active participants ? Interview with non participants who have observed and written about the IGF ? Creation of a bibliography of material written about the IGF. ? Research, using previously written materials, into the expectations of stakeholders prior to the initiation of the IGF. ? Comparison of the IGF to other international multi-stakeholder efforts and initiatives ? Formal measurement of any elements subject to objective measurement. ? Statistical measures of participation by various factors such as: stakeholder group, region, gender. ? Collection of lists to allow analysis of both written and oral contributions for population statistics. ? Consideration of questionnaires. ? Textual analysis. 3. Timetable 4. The initial process needs to be completed in time for the contractor to initiate the review for the Hyderabad meeting to be held 3-6 December 2008. 5. Outline of Process and schedule: ? First draft to be shared with MAG by 21 July. ? Updated draft, taken into account MAG comments and suggestions, to be posted on IGF Web site by 8 August, with a request for comments. ? Revised version, taking into account written comments, to be reviewed in open consultations on 16 September. ? TOR to be finalized by 30 September. ? Deadline for evaluation report to be submitted by contractor: 31 March 2009. 6. 7. 8. _________________ (Writer B) Thank you for providing us with the draft ToR from infoDev. I may have additional input in the coming days, but one point at this stage: Regarding the second bullet on page 2, l " Research, using previously written materials, into the expectations of stakeholders prior to the initiation of the IGF." The starting point for research on expections can be based on the outcomes of the WSIS, but this term of reference would greatly expand the scope of the study in an unproductive manner. It would also make the evaluation study unnecessarily controversial, and delve into dynamics that are irrelevant at this stage, by revisiting the positions of parties before and during WSIS. This research would also risk being very subjective and could bias the study. The outside evaluation should focus on determining whether the IGF has fulfilled expectations based on the WSIS output instead of opening up differences that were resolved by the WSIS compromises in the output. Deleting this bullet point in the ToR would assist in the objectives you put forward in your message below, to keep the evaluation focused and carefully prioritized. I strongly recommend deleting this term from the list. (Writer C) I would like to support Writer B's point, and make an independent point also. With respect to Writer B's point, the problem with measuring progress with respect to expectations is that expectations are all over the map. Not only do you nave variability across stakeholder groups, you have significant variability within those groups, and therefore any observations with respect to expectations are likely to be unsatisfactory to probably the majority or readers of the report. In other words, I think that this point in the TOR simply buys you trouble in the future and subtracts, in fact, from the objectivity of such a review. The second point is somewhat more problematical. The TOR at present are very much focused upon the IGF, as they should be, but they take no notice of what may have changed in the external environment with respect to ICTs in general and the Internet in particular. While taking such notice is not strictly required for a review of the IGF, it would be shortsighted to ignore any significant evolution of the external environment in which the Internet and Internet governance exist in looking at how well the IGF is fulfilling its mandate. This is particularly important with respect to issues regarding an extension of the mandate beyond 2010. The question itself seems to be biased in favor of a continuation, without regard to any grounding in how the issues are likely to change during such an extension period. Certainly both the Internet as well as how it is operating will evolve during that time, so that the reasons for continuing the IGF, to the extent that they continue to exist, will shift, and perhaps substantially so. Should this make a difference? I think so. Having expressed these opinions, I am uncertain about what modifications to the TOR to suggest, but I do think that some changes need to be made. Perhaps if there others who can perceive this issue more clearly, they can make appropriate suggestions. (Writer D) Hi, as Writer B and Writer C, I also think that despite the apparent interest of the point, it is better to keep the evaluation focused. There is enough material on record to make a list of previous expectations as they existed in time; and the research should focus on what was actually agreed, better than opening up a can of worms of "what I think now that I wanted then, colored by what has happened with me later." (Writer E) I find the infoDev document very useful. Regarding Writer B's remark, I think that it is fine if research documentation is listed, but we should leave it to academics to evaluate those written materials separately. (Writer F) With due respect to InfoDev and IGF Secretariat, I am asking myself whether proposed way of action corresponds to the WSIS decision which reads as follows: 76. We ask the UN Secretary-General to examine the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard. In other words, IGF Chair Nitin Desai and the Secretariat is asked to assess the usefulness of continuation of the IGF in the formal way – session of the forth or fifth IGF meeting and advise UN SG on the course of further action. IGF so far has proven being a useful platform of interaction. Stakeholders are sending their delegations/ representatives and funding operations of the Secretariat. It is good sign and will continue until stakeholders will feel usefulness of the exercise. Withdrawal of one or several stakeholder groups from the process will be a sign that IGF has reached the end of its existence. In my view, proposed ToR and subsequent public discussion on its content will attempt to alter and, inevitably, enlarge the scope of IGF. I do not think it is useful. Current IGF model works and should stay as it is. Proposed evaluation, no matter how democratic it will be, may damage the idea behind the IGF. I have been many times advocating for discontinuation of functions when they are not needed any more, but in this case I think (in a positive way) that IGF is condemn to live until 2015 – review of WSIS, unless one or more stakeholder groups will withdraw their support (including financial) to IGF earlier. In other words, I am not supporting a conduct of outside evaluation, but suggest returning to the question of the possible form of the formal consultation with Forum participants after India meeting in May 2009. (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, Many thanks for your thoughtful input so far. Maybe a few words of explanation where we have come from may help to stimulate further the discussion. Firstly, Writer F asked the very basic question, as the French say: à quoi bon (or what is the point)? There may have been a less than perfect communication as regards the purpose of the outside evaluation. It is not intended to replace the broad-based review process called for by he Tunis Agenda. It is rather intended as an input into this process, a kind of 'food for thought' paper, that may be referred to by participants in the review process or outright rejected. In my experience it helps to have a document as a basis for a discussion. From the outset I felt it would be more helpful if such a paper were developed by an outside entity rather than the Secretariat. This is why I was very pleased when infoDev agreed to take on this task. It is a very considerable in-kind contribution and I am confident that it will be a good staring point for a review process as stipulated by the WSIS outcome document, i.e. "in formal consultation with Forum participants, within five years of its creation, and to make recommendations to the UN Membership in this regard". This consultation will start in May 2009. I firmly believe that these consultations will benefit from an input paper from an independent source. Secondly, several other commentators underlined that we need to stick to agreed language and avoid giving the impression that we anticipate the answers. In a first draft we tried to make use of agreed language, but then we thought that it looked not necessarily very comprehensible to the outsider. However, I take it that any short cuts to make the language more easily understandable may also lead to misunderstandings. The final version will need to adhere to a narrower definition of the ToR, adhering to the WSIS mandate. I look forward to your further comments. Best regards Markus (Writer G) I would like to support Writer B's point. Wuth best regards. (Writer H) Hello all, drawing on one part of an earlier message from Writer B... Writer B wrote: > Not sure we > want both sections of the CIR session to focus on > IPv4/6 transition, though the RIRs' policy > processes are of course one important part of the > "arrangements" section. Think we need to take a > bit of care here or we'll end up with some > political hassle. > I think Writer B is right. The second part of the CIR session shouldn't focus on IPv4/6 as well. At least this is not what we intended to do when we discussed this session in our last meeting in May. From what I understand, PCH has volunteered to merge its workshop (# 51) to become part of the 2. part of CIR session. My sense is that the PCH proposal would fit well into the first part. There is also an overlap regarding the proposed panelists. If the PCH workshop could be convinced to join the first section, we could reconsider the focus for the second part and search for workshop proposals that would fit into this section. What do others think? (Writer I) Unfortunately, I will not be able to send my ranking of workshops today. But I will do my best to send on Monday morning. I hope it's not too late. Bye the way, some thoughts while doing this exercise: - Since the number of workshops is rather important, and we are not sure to have slots for all relevant requests, I suggest we select, if the problem arises, only two of the best proposals sent by single organizations having sent several proposals. (the final selection would be done after discussions with the concerned organizations). Several organizations have sent 3 to 6 workshop proposals. - Sometimes, we don't have in fact much information about proponents. This makes it difficult to access the "seriousness" of the proposal/organization. (maybe should have we have a criterion about that (Interest of the proposal/organization) which would have been based on information provided in the proposal. I didn't think about it sooner). (Markus Kummer) Dear colleagues, The official invitation to attend the Third IGF Meeting in Hyderabad on 3-6 December 2008 is now posted on our Web site. The invitation, on behalf of the Secretary-General, was issued by Under-Secretary-General Sha Zukang. Best regards Markus (Writer B) Apologies for being late with evaluation form, just sent to the secretariat. But some comments: Is it me, or are there many discrepancies between the spreadsheet and website. Quite awkward to complete. Too many proposals are incomplete, some very incomplete (GLOCOM's proposal is in this state, but we are actually looking to merge so haven't up-dated for that reason.) I know the secretariat has written to workshop organizers many times, so it's a shame so many seem not to have been updated since first proposed. I think lack of completeness should be an additional criteria. Also, can you provide us with some idea of who submitted workshop reports last year. Particularly among those proposing more than one workshop this year and held more than one workshop last year, this would include those merging and joining main session workshops. I would also like more detail of workshops that are merging. Some seem rather weak, and even if merged wouldn't be much better. There are a couple that seem better suited as best practise sessions, and some (at least one) that say they are best practise but are anyway listed in the workshop section. Going though in order down the page... What happened to UNESCO's "Access to Public Held Information with a Development Perspective" not on the spread sheet. Global Partners and Associates workshop in the Openness section is on the spreadsheet and not the website. The workshop listed as Sun Microsystems, it it this workshop: "Knowledge as a Global Public Good: How Fair Use, Open Source and ICT Standards Can Expand Digital Inclusion" I can't find the World Bank's workshop on the web. There's a workshop listed as belonging to APC but on the website looks like ISOC "Steps toward an Internet that is multilingual, yet remains global" Is there a missing APC workshop? I am marking based on the ISOC description. There are three Council of Europe workshops listed under security, I can only find 2 on the web. I am taking the fist as missing, the rest seem to be in order. There's a World Bank workshop under Critical Internet Resources on the web but not on the spreadsheet. There are two Diplo workshops listed on the spreadsheet. They seem to be the last of development and first of capacity building sections. INTERPOL seems to be a best practise not workshop. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html