[IGFmaglist] PROPOSAL FOR IGF FUNDING MECHANISM WORKING GROUP
Juuso.Moisander at formin.fi
Wed May 18 05:59:11 EDT 2016
Dear Wisdom, Renata, all,
as a long-term committed IGF donor my government naturally supports increased funding to the IGF. A lot of good work has been done in recent years in this field.
As a MAG member, I have concerns whether improving IGF funding falls within the mandate and primary functions of the MAG. My take on the ToR is that our primary function is to prepare the annual meeting. To my knowledge, lack of funds is not threatening the success of this year's IGF.
The CSTD working group on IGF improvements made recommendations also on this topic. In the report's section 'funding of the IGF', the MAG is described to be 'tasked with preparing IGF meetings'. Further down the text, the key actors on funding outreach are identified to be the IGF secretariat and the MAG chair.
Based on the above, I would be bound to follow the CSTD wg recommendations and would not be able to support setting up a MAG working group on IGF funding.
From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Sent: 18. toukokuuta 2016 2:36
To: Wisdom Donkor
Subject: Re: [IGFmaglist] PROPOSAL FOR IGF FUNDING MECHANISM WORKING GROUP
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.
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
> 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
> 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
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
More information about the Igfmaglist