<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16788" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Parminder and all</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be
added between (2) and (3) : IG and Developinng Countries. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these
countries or from industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue
to be given its right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are
two main themes related to this issue : </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some
representatives of a minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in
the discussions on IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>(2) Taking in account the spatial extension of
the critical </FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>Internet resources, first of
all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and IXP, in order to provide
the affordability to Internet access and services for these
countries.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Respecting that, the third point you raise should
also encompass the financing of both these themes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>All the best</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jean-Louis Fullsack </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>---- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=parminder@itforchange.net
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">Parminder</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=governance@lists.cpsr.org
href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [governance] IGF consultations -
extending IGF's mandate</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Dear All<BR><BR>The
Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting views on
the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be considered by
CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's ECOSOC in 2010. The
WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated that the decision on
the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF participants'. It is the
first time that open consultations will be for 2 days, and the reason for this
is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to considering this particular
issue. <BR><BR>Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only
those who gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some
form comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in
Geneva are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all
process decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have
important bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may
constitute 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on
continuation of the IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put
in our substantive comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
<BR><BR>Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;<BR><BR>(1) First of
all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will that IGF has a
crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically global public
policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF should be
continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened. <BR><BR>(2) We
should also assert that there are two clear, and relatively distinct, mandates
of the IGF - first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum for
multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity building.
Both aspects of the IGF's role needs to be strengthened. Especially, one role
(for instance, capacity building) should not be promoted to the exclusion of
the other (policy related role). If the IGF is assessed not to be sufficiently
contributing to its one or the other principal roles, adequate measures should
be considered to improve its effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role. <BR><BR>(3)
The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to
carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public interest.
<BR><BR>Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the
synthesis paper on this subject.<BR><BR>parminder <BR><BR><BR><BR></FONT>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>____________________________________________________________<BR>You
received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>
governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>To be removed from the list, send any message
to:<BR>
governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org<BR><BR>For all list information and
functions, see:<BR>
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>