[IGFmaglist] PROPOSAL FOR IGF FUNDING MECHANISM WORKING GROUP

Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com
Tue May 17 19:36:16 EDT 2016


Dear MAG members, Wisdom

I`d also like to support this initiative
If this is not the case for a Working Group, it could also join forces
with BPF Gender and Access and the Outreach group.

Best,

Renata


On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Wisdom Donkor <wisdom.dk at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear  Chair, Members
>
>
>
> I believe the time has come for everyone to get on board the visions and
> missions of IGF. A lot has being achieve in the past few years and a lot
> more need to be done considering the WSIS, Tunis and the United Nations
> vision 2030 agenda. Looking at the scope, objectives and the 10 years
> mandate period of IGF, I think, there is the need to increase the funding
> base of IGF with the aim of expanding its activities to achieving its
> targeted goals.
>
>
>
> Connecting the next billion, Universal access, capacity building, Regional
> and National IGF Initiative and other initiatives of IGF might need a
> sustainable funding mechanism to keep IGF away from financial stress. I am
> by this proposing a funding mechanism working group to work out funding
> modalities for IGF. I am looking at a broader picture where funds can be
> made available to qualified people who will like to participate in IGF
> activities, most especially the youth and for that matter women in society.
> With this, I am looking at two levels of funding:
>
> 1.     IGF activity Funds
>
> 2.     National IGF Project Implementation Funds
>
>
>
> 1.     IGF activities funding
>
> This funding will go into the funding of IGF activities such: IGF Fellowship
> program, Connecting the next billion, capacity building, Funding Regional
> and National IGF Initiative programs etc.
>
>  2.     National IGF Project Implementation Fund
>
> This funding mechanism will be at governmental level where government will
> have to sign onto a treaty to enable access to the fund. I believe this in
> itself will attract government and to a large extent will help governments
> curtail some of the bottle neck issues retarding the growth of internet at
> national levels most specifically in the developing countries.
>
>
>
> I believe governments in its obligations have its priorities and budget
> limits to what can be achieved within a time frame. Governments might agree
> to the course of internet governance but might be slow in implementation as
> a result of lack funding.
>
>
>
> One such funding avenue is the World Bank Financial Intermediary Funds
> (FIFs) this is a financial arrangements that typically leverage a variety of
> public and private resources in support of international initiatives,
> enabling the international community to provide a direct and coordinated
> response to global priorities. Most FIFs have supported global programs
> often focused on the provision of global public goods, including ICT
> infrastructure, human rights, responses to climate change, and food security
> etc. FIFs often involve innovative financing and governance arrangements as
> well as flexible designs which enable funds to be raised from multiple
> sources, both sovereign and private. FIF structures are customized,
> depending on the needs of the partnership and agreements with the World
> Bank.
>
> The World Bank FIFs Trusteeship does not involve overseeing or supervising
> the use of funds. This is the role of other implementing agencies that
> receive funding and are responsible for project or program implementation.
> Transfers are generally made by the Trustee to external agencies (e.g.
> United Nations agencies or Multilateral Development Banks) for the
> implementation of activities. In the case of FIFs whose governing bodies
> have the legal and other required capacities to take on responsibility for
> the use of funds, the Bank transfers funds received from donors directly to
> multiple third party entities, usually in recipient countries, based on
> instructions from and on behalf of the governing body.
>
> The Banks portfolio consists of various types of trust funds, which have
> different roles globally and in the Bank Group’s activities. As of June 30,
> 2011, the Bank Group held $29.1 billion of funds in trust. Of this amount,
> $10.4 billion corresponded to trust funds managed by the International Bank
> for Reconstruction and Development/International Development Association
> (IBRD/IDA), $18.0 billion to the Financial Intermediary Funds, and $0.7
> billion to trust funds managed by the International Finance Corporation.
>
> The Bank operational teams spread across the globe provide downstream
> technical assistance to build local capacity for implementation. In cases
> where the Bank has been selected as an implementing agency by the FIF
> governing body, resources may be received by Bank operational units for the
> implementation of activities through the trust funds. These roles are
> managed by different Bank vice-presidencies.
>
>
>
> A typical example is the open government data movement championed by the
> World Bank at country level and have achieved several successors globally
> all as a result of funding that compel government to be committed.
>
>
>
> One key concentrated area when it comes to the developing countries is
> internet infrastructure, universal Access and economic and social
> empowerment.
>
> This notion is somewhat hard to be define and one of the important tasks for
> governance would be to clarify between several competing definitions.
> Outstanding issues include whether universal access should cover:
>
> ·        access for every citizen on an individual or household basis, or
> for communities (e.g., villages and small towns) to ensure that all citizens
> are within reach of an access point;
>
> ·        access only to basic telephony (i.e., narrow-band), or access also
> to value-added services like the Internet and broadband; and
>
> ·        access only to infrastructure, or also to content, services and
> applications.
>
>
>
> In addition, any adequate definition of universal access must also address
> the following questions:
>
> ·        How to define “universal”? Universal access is frequently taken to
> mean access across geographic areas, but it could equally refer to access
> across all gender, income, or age groups. In addition, the term is
> frequently used almost synonymously with the digital divide, to refer to the
> need for equitable access between rich and poor countries.
>
> ·        Should universal access include support services? Access to content
> or infrastructure is not very useful if users are unable to make use of that
> access due to the fact that they are illiterate or uneducated. For this
> reason, it is sometimes argued that universal access policies must include a
> range of socio-economic support services.
>
>
>
> Each of these components, or a combination of them, is generally widely held
> to be desirable. However, the realization of universal access is complicated
> by the fact that there usually exist significant economic disincentives to
> connect traditionally underserved populations. For example, network
> providers argue that connecting geographically remote customers is
> financially unremunerative, and that the required investments to do so would
> make their businesses unsustainable. For this reason, one of the key
> governance decisions that must be made in any attempt to provide universal
> access is whether that goal should be left to market forces alone, or
> whether the State should provide some form of financial support to
> providers.
>
>
> When (as is frequently the case) States decide to provide some form of
> public subsidy, then it is essential to determine the appropriate funding
> mechanism. (Universal service funds), which allocate money to providers that
> connect underserved areas, are one possible mechanism. A more recent
> innovation has been the use of least cost-subsidy auctions, in which
> providers bid for a contract to connect underserved areas; the provider
> requiring the lowest subsidy is awarded the contract.
>
>
>
> In addition to funding the governance of universal access also encompasses a
> range of other topics. For instance, definitions of universal access need to
> be regularly updated to reflect technological developments  recently, some
> observers have suggested that universal service obligations (traditionally
> imposed only on fixed-line telecommunications providers), should also be
> imposed on cellular phone companies, and possibly even on ISPs.
> Interconnection arrangements, rights-of-way, and licensing policies are
> other matters that are relevant to universal access. The range of issues
> suggests the complexity of an adequate governance structure but it also
> suggests the importance of such a structure.
>
>
>
> This is my personal opinion and will be glad if members can discuss this
> further.
>
>
> In this regard, I hope this proposal of the IGF funding Mechanism Working
> Group can be considered.
>
>
>
> Sorry for my long text and typos.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>




More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list