Dear IATI members and others in the IATI community,
Last week, the Governing Board met for its quarterly meeting. Main topic was the way forward in the hosting arrangements. With this post, we want to give you an update on events of the last few months, on the decisions we took for the coming months, and on what we will ask from the members very soon. This is a bit long, apologies.
As you hopefully know, the agreement with the host of IATI ends at the end of 2022 and will not be renewed. The Governing Board has the task of finding a new home for IATI (details in this post and the minutes of the April 2022 Governing Board meeting). This is a big undertaking and we have little time, and this is also why we as a Board very much appreciate the continued support of the current hosts, and the ongoing commitment of the IATI community. We will need both, this year and the next.
Our first decision is to re-establish the Institutional Working Group. The IWG was active in 2021 to advise the Board on the future governance structure of IATI, and we hope the IWG2021 members and any new volunteers are willing to help us again, by advising on the following matters:
- Updated Terms of Reference for the hosting of IATI 2023-2027. The Board is also considering splitting the ToRs in two parts (one policy/technical ToR and one ToR for operations), and would like the IWG’s opinion on this option.
- The option for the GB to enter into an agreement with a new host via a Letter of Agreement, which the Board understands is a common solution for hosted initiatives such as IATI – and to seek advice from a qualified legal advisor on what this entails in legal and liability matters for IATI as an initiative, and for members of the Governing Board.
- Lead the selection of new hosts for IATI as evaluated against the Hosting Terms of Reference previously developed by the IWG in 2021.
We ask the IWG to start work as soon as possible, and to guide the GB on the first two issues as soon as possible (timeframe to be discussed). The selection of new hosts for IATI should take place at the end of October at the latest. If you are considering being part of this important work, we thank you very much for your interest and ask both former IWG members and new volunteers to register here before July 18th. The updated Terms of Reference for the IWG are here.
In the meantime, we will start a search for possible new hosts. Because the new Terms of Reference for this will need approval from the Members Assembly, and urgently so, we will ask members to vote on the updated ToRs via a written procedure, as soon as the IWG has advised on the new ToR.
Between 7 and 10 November (exact date to be announced), we will meet for a Members Assembly in Copenhagen (UN City) and vote on the new hosting arrangement. Keeping in mind potential constraints so near to the end of the current Secretariat mandate, we want to combine the MA with some community led sessions, and in general a chance to get to know each other in 3D again.
In the meantime, if you have any questions, please send an email to chair@iatistandard.org. Also please follow our new account IATI Governing Board on IATI Connect for updates. Minutes of the Board meeting will be shared as soon as possible on Connect and on the website.
Thank you very much,
The Governing Board
A few some important questions, to be answered by the Board. At short notice, please.
1. Who has taken these decisions concerning the hosting arrangement? The old or the new board?
2. Who has the right the take these decisions? In my point of view, it's the Members Assembly and not the Board. So there is no decision taken as long as the members haven't had the opportunity to agree or to disagree.
3. For the time being I haven't read the arguments for not continuing the consortium UNDP/DI/UNOPS. Please do provide them in detail, including the reply of the consortium.
4. This there any chance a new consortium can be found with a better hosting arrangement? What will the situation if it can not be found?
Dear Erik,
Thank you for your questions. We understand you are concerned about the developments around the hosting of IATI. Let us try to explain the steps we are taking in line with the mandate given by the members during the MA 2021.
1. Who has taken these decisions concerning the hosting arrangement? The old or the new board?
Based on the advice of an assessment panel, which included members of the old board as well as a representative of the IWG, the old Board made a recommendation to the new Board, which was carefully considered and accepted.
2. Who has the right the take these decisions? In my point of view, it's the Members Assembly and not the Board. So there is no decision taken as long as the members haven't had the opportunity to agree or to disagree.
During the MA 2021, the members decided that "the GB first enters into negotiations with the current hosting consortium on the basis of the adjusted TOR as proposed by the IWG in option 3.a. If these negotiations do not reach a satisfactory conclusion in the next 3 months, the GB, with the involvement of the IWG and members, will initiate the search for a hosting arrangement as indicated in option 3.b. of the IWG." That is exactly where we are today.
The Board has continued to keep members informed at every stage, and will continue to do so. The 2022 MA will be the opportunity for members to vote on proposed new arrangements. There was no decision point for members since the negotiations with the consortium were unsuccessful.
Any background can be found in Paper 2a: Board recommendations from IWG Report (2021 MA), specifically paragraph at the end of page 2 which includes: "Members will be kept updated on the progress of the negotiations and involved in follow up procedures if no agreement can be reached."
3. For the time being I haven't read the arguments for not continuing the consortium UNDP/DI/UNOPS. Please do provide them in detail, including the reply of the consortium.
In its April meeting, the Board has agreed not to share the evaluation report or the consortium proposal to avoid giving competitive advantage to future bids, or influence the chances of consortium members who may consider putting in a proposal. At the same time, we understand that members have questions about such an important decision. Therefore the board will prepare a statement,based on the assessment panel 's advice.
4. This there any chance a new consortium can be found with a better hosting arrangement? What will the situation if it can not be found?
Although the negotiations about a new hosting arrangement were unsuccessful, the consortium members have given their commitment to ensure a smooth transition from the current host to the new hosting arrangement as soon as that is secured. The consortium has also acknowledged that 31 December 2022 cannot be a hard end date and that there will be a spillover of closure and handover activities into 2023 - which we are grateful for.
At the the same time, the Board is encouraged to identify new hosts sooner rather than later, which is why we are reviving the IWG to help in the process.
Hi Erik,
We still owe you an answer on your question 3. The Board rejected the proposal for three main reasons based on the advice of the evaluation panel.
This does not mean that we believe that the organisations are in themselves incapable of running IATI, so any new bid that takes into consideration this feedback, by the consortium or by its members individually, we believe should be fairly considered by the MA in November.
Please log in or sign up to comment.