<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Ginger,<br>
<br>
You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may
want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today)<br>
<br>
As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence <br>
<br>
'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.'<br>
<br>
can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all
talk' is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited
knowledge of the language. <br>
<br>
also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing IGF's
mandate , other than 72 (a) as well.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
</font><br>
Ginger Paque wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A5B304F.4080908@gmail.com" type="cite">I believe
this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns:
<br>
<br>
1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in
the Tunis Agenda?
<br>
<br>
Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order
to foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and
development of the Internet.
<br>
<br>
There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place.
So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The
participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even
the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking
place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this
process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that
discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors,
particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not
been adequately addressed.
<br>
<br>
The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder
processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is
heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are
already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and
seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives,
including the IGF Remote Hubs. Since the fear of governmental
domination is considerably higher at national levels, IGF should use
global civil society groups and processes to guide appropriate
multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF spaces. IGC again
offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.
<br>
<br>
Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque
wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable
to you?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be",
because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than
"all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>