Hackpads are smart collaborative documents. Join Hackpad Now.
273 days ago
Table # Facilitated by Has a consensus been reached?
Yes/No
Issues for plenary
1 Annelise Parr yes 1) Secretariat as main driver for maintaining/developing the standard –members as political ambassadors of IATI 2) political support important to tackle challenge of increasing quality/use of data 3)Wording - technical initiative (more than standard) and includes work on supporting publishers and user in use and quality of data ("policy and technical initiative") 4) what does "policy" role mean for IATI members? yes Maintain both technical and policy so publishers aren't let off the hook when they have published. Duration of vision (to 2030? 5 years? 10 years? Strategic framework can be adjusted, and can delineate the level of ambition. Concerned about being too expansive
2 Patrick Tiefenbacher yes Maybe not a stand-alone political initiative; question on where the boundaries are; reaffirm the need for IATI to have a profile
3 Sarah Johns Yes Where does data quality live? Can be both political and technical.
Tension between outreach and getting better quality more comprehensive information.
How does this dual role fit with where data users sit?
Yes
4 Alasdair Wardhaugh YES 1 - There is a promotional role that could be described as 'political initiative', but not as a 'campaign' 2 - Political initiatives are open to manipulation from individual country/NGO agendas YES
5 Jamie Attard YES a.        Acknowledge ecosystem of data and how to support. More active engagement is needed. Need to look at demand and supply of data. This sets the IATI standard apart from all other standards. Need to differentiate between responsibilities of different bodies and which is tasked with what. Secretariat to do technical work and others political YES
6 Joni Hillman Yes Political initiative is awkward/misleading wording, but agree with concept (e.g., IATI promoting publishing and use). IATI should be viewed as an open data standard that actively promotes transparency to all stakeholders. Political  initiative seems to prioritize publishers, and leave out users and those ultimately mean to benefit from the data. Yes
7 Carolyn Culey Yes 1) Need to better distinguish governance mechanisms/processes between technical and political issues; 2) Need to recognize limits to what IATI can do; 3) Consider if new statement of values/commitments for members should be required; 4) Recognizing we are early in the process, the true choice for SC is political initiative to achieve "____" (vision statement)? Yes
8 Harpinder Collacott No 1) 'Political initiative' requires definition.2) This is the wrong question - 'We are not being asked to define a vision' 3) Can we have a discussion tomorrow morning on broad outlines of vision 3 Noes
9 Samuel Blazyk YES no remark !
10 Sohir Debbiche YES Promoting data use
look at the demand of data from the beneficiaries
reinforce the workplan and build capacity around the use of the data
increase the number of publishers (arab countries)
YES
11 Robin Uyterlinde YES We believe there is still aneed for political buy-in, and would like to look more at demand for data and its use so that the success of the IATI movement is not just evaluated on the performance of donors YES
 
Table # Facilitated by Has a consensus been reached?
Yes/No
Issues for plenary
1 Annelise Parr yes How to convince new stakeholders to associate to IATI? What is meant by "all resources for development"? How proactive should that be followed? What would that mean for the IATI standard? How to relate to 2030 agenda? Make it possible, yes, but don't proactively expand. How to capture South-South flows? Forward-looking data is crucial, no matter who publishes yes
2 Patrick Tiefenbacher yes de-facto already happening; from partner country perspective, this ambition is needed to be useful; big vision OK but need to prioritize
3 Sarah Johns Yes Moving towards a broader view runs the risk of diluting the impact of a more focussed intent.
Some of the development flows cannot be subject to the same timeliness criteria as traditional aid.
Yes
4 Alasdair Wardhaugh YES 1 - "All international resources" is incredibly broad. It could include trade, loans etc. 2 - We don't want to duplicate work/data collection of other standards e.g. EITI 3 - Positioning IATI as part of the joined up data movement may be more appropriate 4 - 'Development cooperation' as a better term? 5 - "Supporting results" is a contentious issue, and IATI could consider focusing on the current elements in use before including more YES, but ...
5 Jamie Attard yes <u>a.        How to be strategic in plan? More that IATI supports other standards is in our common interest. Simplifies need to deal with multiple data sources.
b.        FFD acknowledges critical role of IATI to help with financing. Need to keep scaling up.
c.        Have to acknowledge that this is an ambitious goal but this is the only way to move. Risk of becoming obsolete if this move does not happen.
d.        Need to focus on all the flows as flagged but will be extremely challenging. How to address resource question.  Need to think about how governance structure would need to change to think about these new groups. Engagement model would have to look at governance model.
e.        How would IATI relate to other bodies on this area of work
f.        Stipulation for IATI compliance could be included in government tender requirements.</u>
6 Joni Hillman Yes All flows: Broad agreement that IATI should expand focus to more flows to take into account the changing aid landscape, but some concern about the exact scope of this.  There may also be some issues around combining data on all resources at the local level. Might need to improve flow type field/codes to be able to disaggregate data by type of resource. Results and impact: This is difficult for individual organizations to capture - what would this mean for IATI? Will be challenging, but results data needs to be included somehow. Yes
7 Carolyn Culey Yes 1) Language could be more clear (e.g. remittance flows not likely to be included); 2) Concerns over opportunity cost of attempting to drive publication from additional actors (needs to be prioritized vs other activities); 3) Concerns about being linked to SDGs which may be viewed as too "top down" by partner countries - potentially prefer a more general point of "supporting transparency in development"; 4) Need to be cognizant of developments among other standards/OECD, etc. to ensure comparability; 5) as sources of information increase, audiences change (e.g. aid coordination unit vs trade) Yes 7) Need to recognize work being done in other spaces on results; 8) Need to link up better with efforts/developments at country level
8 Harpinder Collacott No 1) It is not clear what 'all international resources for development' means - this requires clarification. 2) We do recognise this goes beyond traditionally defined aid. 6 yes, 1 no
9 Samuel Blazyk YES With efforts to be done to improve the quality and the use of data. (usability)
10 Sohir Debbiche Yes IATI needs to embrace the new aid architecture landscape.
We recognize the importance of the SDGs. IATI and SDGs should go hand in hand.
IATI does not have to be within but rather be ccloser or be complementary of the SDGs.
IATI has its own identity and needs to find its own justification
IATI will give a real meaning to the SDGs
11 Robin Uyterlinde Yes Agree in principle to reflect and recognise SDGs. Recommend change of wording from 'positon' to 'align with' , and take out 'all resources', because we don't know where SDGs are going, and don't believe the standard has all the answers Yes but Stipulation for IATI compliance could be included in government tender requirements.
 
Table # Facilitated by Has a consensus been reached?
Yes/No
Issues for plenary
1 Annelise Parr Yes Not an absolute necessity but would certainly help bringing the initiative closer to reality and composition of publishers (and future ones) - keep acronym and logo though
2 Patrick Tiefenbacher yes yes to the need to rename/reposition and evaluate if new brand will attract new stakeholders; do some cost-benefit analysis; keep the abbreviation if possible with a new tagline to get away from the literal meaning;
3 Sarah Johns Yes More important than the name is communicating the vision clearly. Keep the acronym?
Need to be careful not to take away focus and resources from outreach to core stakeholders e.g. in countries. Need to keep the focus
Yes
4 Alasdair Wardhaugh YES YES
5 Jamie Attard YES a.        Need to think about strategy and the costs and resources involved.
b.        Question of brand and question of messages.
c.        Better to keep acronym and find ways to work and adjust it.
d.        Each would require different strategies. Both aid and accountability are unattractive terms to some actors.
e.        Need to think about messaging around standard and how to move it away from concept of how it is seen vis-à-vis aid and other flows.
f.        Branding needs to be connected with message. Also need to promote change.
YES
6 Joni Hillman Yes IATI is not well known in the circles it wishes to become more relevant to, so rebranding it could be a good opportunity to combine with a broader communications campaign - but only if have the necessary resources /  At the same time changing the name to keep acronym could be simplest solution. Yes
7 Carolyn Culey Yes 1) Need to keep the acronym - something along the lines of "International Accountability and Transparency Initiative"; 2) Concerns that "initiative" seems temporary Yes
8 Harpinder Collacott Yes 1) Not clear on what name or rebranding should be Yes
9 Samuel Blazyk No for renaming - YES for rebranding to reinforce the identity of the Initiative. an idea: keeping the name but adding a Tagline !
10 Sohir Debbiche Keep IATI but rebrand, change the message and the values. IATI has to be more inclusive and better conceptualize its mission
11 Robin Uyterlinde Yes Prefer not to rebrand. IATI is seen positively by people who know it. But we want to reach out more actively and adress negative perceptions. No
s
 
Table # Facilitated by Has a consensus been reached?
Yes/No
Issues for plenary
1 Annelise Parr yes how to align mission and values? ideally, both should be closely intertwinned yes
2 Patrick Tiefenbacher yes don't water down - remain ambitious and forward-looking; have something for new members to sign up to;
3 Sarah Johns Yes Needs to be short, focussed and high level. Should be based on the Accra Statement. Start by looking at needs of currently excluded possible partners.
Delegate one person to draft this. If it ends up as months of conversation that would be wrong
Yes
4 Alasdair Wardhaugh YES 1 - there are lots of things currently under consideration that may make a statement of values redundant by the time it is completed 2 - "MAG recommends that in the context of new responsibilities, the Board should develop a statement of values that reflects these changes and represents IATI. YES, and...
5 Jamie Attard YES a.        Need to agree on key values to link everyone together. Modify values.
b.        Clearer institutional embedding of IATI values with existing international agreements.
c.        This should provide a road map for the other areas of work.
d.        Certain themes come out already together.
i.        Multi-stakeholder
ii.        Importance of openness and commitment to it.
Should not develop too many values – highlight core elements
6 Joni Hillman Yes Yes, but don't put a lot of time and effort into it. Link it to other initiatives/processes (e.g., data revolution) to provide context. Also still need to address the question of the vision for IATI - that has not been discussed yet. Yes
7 Carolyn Culey Yes 1) Data quality/publication commitments; 2) Supporting principle of transparency in development; 3) Advocating for data use; 4) Acknowledgement of initiative's goal of increasing impact/effectiveness of development; 5) Institutionalization of IATI within member organization (e.g. linking to country offices)
8 Harpinder Collacott Yes 1) We need post-Busan, beyond transparency values. 2) This is a job for the membership, not the Board Yes
9 Samuel Blazyk YES
10 Sohir Debbiche Yes to be linked with all processes already in place, everyone is supposed to have its own mandate but complementary to the others (e.g OECD, data revolution). Better harmonization with others
new set of values within or in parallel to Agenda 2030 should be further and deeply discussed (plenary?).
Reducing the poverty is not about competition but about global action
11 Robin Uyterlinde Group willing in principle to open the values. We don't see the problem of 'exclusion', but are open to hearing from people who do. We would also stress the role of users and demand for data - moving from one-way to mutual accountability. We would empower the executive Board to tell us what changes people want to the vision, as long as we get to approve the changes. Ye
 
273 days ago
Table # Facilitated by Has a consensus been reached?
Yes/No
Issues for plenary What is the Consensus?
Yes/No
1 Annelise Parr Yes 1) how to ensure continuity of Board (longer terms?) 2) composition of Board in relation to a) geographical coverage b) representation of different constituencies (aid agencies, financial instiutions), SSC providers etc. Perhaps refer to 3 constituencies at  a time. 3) permanent and rotating members of the assembly? 4) how to ensure that Board can deliver on all its responsibilities (e.g. delegating, sub-groups)? 5) should Board be enlarged in light of expected work load and diversity of constituencies? Board should be established
2 Patrick Tiefenbacher yes Needs to be more precisely defined with TOR and expected deliverables; question of transition/hand-over from MAG; clarity on what decisions are vested in Board; equal representation of all stakeholder groups; timeline for swinging into the new structure yes
3 Sarah Johns Yes 1) Is the scope of work for GB achievable by volunteers?
2) The MA is still the decision making body. Should the GB become this? Differing views on this.
3) GB needs to actively consult the MA members.
4) How might new members joining the MA get involved?
5) Do GB members represent specific consitituencies or are they part of a collective voice?
6) Delegating decision making to the GB could be possible depending on the scope of the vision. Some parameters are needed to support delegated decision making.
Yes
4 Alasdair Wardhaugh Yes 1. Not managing constituencies, but drawn from them.  Should be able to reach out and be reached by members. 2. Is 7 enough - should Board be empowered to co-opt in others based on expertise. 3. Fees paying membership - partner countries self selected by those paying (ok for interim - or should it be seen as in-kind?). Yes
5 Carl Elmstam YES 1. Need to ensure timeline is reasonable and set out critical path for it; 2. Need to adjust SOP and set out process; 3. Need to elect members by entity and not individually (by person) 4. Need to ensure rotation among members 5. Need to prevent conflicts of interest among Board members (voting on measures that impact their organisation directly 6. Need to set bar for being able to stand for Board (this would be funding/in-kind contribution to IATI or can be done through sponsorship 7. Need to ensure that voting does not promote silos among constituencies (and allow for validation of slates/candidates by all constituencies). YES
6 Joni Hillman Yes 1) Worry about responsibilities for size of 6 person board. 2) Representation of the board? 3) Will people on the board do the work. If they don't do the work, is there mechanism to remove them. 4) Should there be eligibility criteria apart from paying membership fees in order to become part of the Board? Yes
7 Carolyn Culey Yes 1) Concerns over duration/need for staggering of membership (consider 2 yr tenure for Chair/Vice); 2) Concerns over limited representation (number per constituency); 3) Process/expectations for consultation of member assembly by GB between meetings; 4) Representation of partner countries, given full membership requirements (fees); 5) Concerns over frequency of meetings/level of effort Yes se
8 Harpinder Collacott Yes 1) is 4-6 weeks to frequent for meeting and does this restrict institutions available to make this commitment. 2) If working groups haven't worked will GB work - and still need for working groups. 3) Does GB have decision-making powers? 4) We are not getting consensus because the mandate/ToR is insufficiently clear 5) We have consensus that there is a problem with existing structure, but not on the reason for this.6) We have reached consensus on the basis of this being a transitional process. 7) Membership should be looked at, more commited people, less consituency Yes 8) "Executive Board" 5 replacement)  We have consensus for a 12 mnth temporay period. Once vision is agreed we need to relook at governance structure.
9 Samuel Blazyk We would prefer to name it "Executive Board". We also recommend that 1) countries are respresented by 1 Francophone and 1 anglophone and 2) donors are represented by 1 bilateral and 1 multilateral (it's more a preference that compulsory) YES
10 Sohir Debbiche yes lack of details to make a decision, in particular on the strategic vision for IATI for the next future.
What is the value added to financially contribute in the future.
Concern about the number of people at the board, possibly more members to be included. elected representatives need to ensure proper exchanges and dialogue with other IATI members. Duration of the temporary arrangement also to be discussed.
11 Robin Uyterlinde
Member Assembly should be presented options and then decide (on strategic decision). Frequency of MA should be at least twice a year (always one in person). Consider geographical meetings.
 
Table # Facilitated by Has a consensus been reached?
Yes/No
Issues for plenary What is the Consensus?
1 Annelise Parr yes 1) Board should present "proposals" rather than recommendations by presenting different options - not reducing it to yes/no choice 2) work load - important to find effcient divison of labour between Board and Secretariat as well as right level of delegation to sub-groups. Introduce concept of 'scope' for work of board. In this way also no need to revisit list of responsibilities each year. .
2 Patrick Tiefenbacher yes This is the right scope of issues to be covered by Board; quickly publish minutes of the Board to establish trust; use of virtual consultations between Board and Assembly; 6 members is too small to deal with all the issues; balance between Board finding consensus on decisions and ability to refer to Assembly in specific cases; staggered election of Board members to ensure knowledge transfer yes overall clearance of a set of decisions by the Assembly; roll the rest into a "programme of work"
3 Sarah Johns Yes 1) Cost implications need to be made clearer in Terms of Reference, so that money is not wasted on governance processes/meetings
2) Recommendations or decisions? If quality of consultation is good then the GB could make some decisions. Try the proposed recommendation and review after 6 months.
3) Engagement with MA will be challenging.To ensure that smaller organisations have their voice heard.
Yes Easier to know the responsibilities when there is a strategic plan.
4 Alasdair Wardhaugh Yes Timing ambitious - to agree Board by March and decisons by assembly in June - can it be smoothed e.g. MAG continues to support taking work forward.  2. Structure fine - but tidy up which decisions are taken at whcih level (examples). 3. make clear relationship between Secretariat and Board (e.g. papers production) Yes
5 Carl Elmstam YES 1. Need to set a calendar and minimal number of meetings per year 2. Need to set up process/technology for making contributions and comments 3. Need to be clear about which functions are devolved to Board and from where (what day-to-day decisions are they authorised to take 4 Need to set out clear process when consensus is not reached (SOP) and how this tie-breaker is addressed 5. Need to assess whether a consensus structure is the est (should it be by majority). YES Need to have option to re-elect first Board for another year up to a maximum of two years (to assist with planning and continuation). 2. Is there a need for a two-year limit
6 Joni Hillman Yes 1) Are there going to be positions for the board members. I.e.  A person with budget experience the treasurer? 2) Is it too much for a "virtual" six people board. How hands on is the board?  Is 4-6 weeks realistic for meetings? Ensure that expectations are made very clear of board members. Have review process in place to evaluate workload, responsibility and RESULTS. Yes
7 Carolyn Culey Yes 1) Need more clarity of interaction between GB and Secretariat (e.g. frequency and nature of guidance, etc.); 2) Scope of responsibility vis a vis member working groups/sub-groups (e.g. on data quality, finance); 3) At what point do meetings become 1x per year instead of 2 Yes
8 Harpinder Collacott Yes 1) GB should also be responsible for ensuring cohesion between strategy and workplan 2) GB should have mandate to task members with responsibilities and priorities. 3) ToRs for Member Assembly need to be developed 4) Clarity on actions - who does what amongst all members Yes
9 Samuel Blazyk 1) The paper should reinforce the fact that the EB has to really support the Secretariat daily delivery work. 2) We would like to add that the EB should also approve the annual work plan and its corresponding budget. YES
10 Sohir Debbiche Yes the consensus of the General Assembly should be kept as final step for the decision making process.
Establish trust within each constituency. Make sure all voices are heard.
Yes
11 Robin Uyterlinde
 
Members (36)
j-adams@dfid.gov.uk Carl Elmstam Frank Wissing Madsen Kelsey Lefebvre Morag Patrick Craig Fagan Laia Grino Roderick Besseling Daniel Mackenzie Joshua Powell Bill Anderson Miji Choi rupert.simons@publishwhatyoufund.org Adrian Aupperle S Johns carl.elmstam@sida.se Laia Grino Laia Grino francesca.fondi@ec.europa.eu saggrey@mofep.gov.gh
Collections

Create a New Collection

Cancel

Move XXX to XXX


XXX will be invited to the XXX on XXX.

Cancel

Contact Support



Please check out our How-to Guide and FAQ first to see if your question is already answered! :)

If you have a feature request, please add it to this pad. Thanks!


Log in / Sign up