[IGFmaglist] PROPOSAL FOR IGF FUNDING MECHANISM WORKING GROUP

Wisdom Donkor wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Wed May 18 06:15:42 EDT 2016


Juusu, your points are clear and noted. I was just looking at the funding
base of IGF to see how MAG can support increase it and as well a kind of
Funding mechanism that will get governments at national levels get more
attracted and committed to the course of internet governance.

Cheers



*WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)*
E-government and Open Government Data Platforms Specialist
National Information Technology Agency (NITA)/
Ghana Open Data Initiative Project.
ICANN Fellow / Member, UN IGF MAG Member, ISOC Member,
Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) Member, Diplo Foundation Member,
OGP Open Data WG Member, GODAN Memember, ITAG Member
Email: wisdom_dk at hotmail.com
wisdom.donkor at data.gov.gh
wisdom.dk at gmail.com
Skype: wisdom_dk
facebook: facebook at wisdom_dk
Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh
www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Moisander Juuso <Juuso.Moisander at formin.fi>
wrote:

> 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.
>
> Regards,
>
> Juuso
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igfmaglist [mailto:igfmaglist-bounces at intgovforum.org] On Behalf Of
> Renata Aquino Ribeiro
> Sent: 18. toukokuuta 2016 2:36
> To: Wisdom Donkor
> Cc: MAG-public
> 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.
>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Igfmaglist mailing list
> Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org/attachments/20160518/430f19a9/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Igfmaglist mailing list