<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">the following is my first
shot at question i.<br>
<br>
</font>
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title></title>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.4 (Linux)">
<style type="text/css">
<!--
@page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm }
P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm }
-->
</style>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><b>To what extent has the IGF
addressed
the mandate set out for it in the Tunis Agenda?</b> <br>
<br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">IGF's mandate given by TA is
specifically set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to
its creation are contained in preceding paras of TA dealing with
Internet governance, and specifically about public policy making in
this area. </font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In terms of its principal
mandate, IGF
seems largely to be on its way to become a unique global forum for
multistakeholder dialogue on IG. However it is important, for this
purpose, to keep up evolutionary innovations that each successive IGF
meeting has tried out. To keep up the interest and engagement of
stakeholders it is important that IGF takes up the most pressing
global IG issues and seek a policy dialogue on them, with the
objective of such a dialogue helping processes of real policy making
in these areas. Overall, IGF's success will be judged from how much
did it manage to influence these real policy making processes. If
this is taken as the central criterion of success, one can say that IGF
is moving towards it but not quite yet there. It needs to
continue to pursue structural evolutions that (1) enables 'effective
and purposeful policy dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent
resolution' and (2) strengthen links with institutions and processes
of real policy making. </font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">In this connection IGF is still
to
achieve any clear success in the area of 'facilitating discourse
between bodies dealing with different cross-cutting<span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">
international pu</span>blic policies regarding the Internet' (
section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental
organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview'
(72 c). </font></p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">IGF has also not been able to
make any
progress towards fulfilling its mandate under section 72 e of
'a<span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">dvising
all stakeholders</span>
in proposing ways and means to accelerate the availability and
affordability of the Internet in the developing world', and section
72 g of 'identifying emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate,
<span
style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0%; -moz-background-clip: -moz-initial; -moz-background-origin: -moz-initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;">making
recommendations'.</span></font>
</p>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">It must however be said that IGF
has
had considerable success in at least three areas</font></p>
<ol>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Getting stakeholders with very
different worldviews to begin talking with each other, and at least
start to see the others point of view if not accept it. This is a very
important initial step because it is widely recognized that IG requires
new and different governance and policy models than exclusively statist
ones.</font></p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Building the capacity on a range
of IG issues among many newer participants, especially from developing
countries with under-developed institutional and expertise systems in
IG arena. </font></p>
</li>
<li>
<p style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Triggering regional and national
initiatives for multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of
possible interactively between the global IGF and these national and
regional initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively
formal way).</font> </p>
</li>
</ol>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
</font><br>
Ginger Paque wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4A5A3667.9000309@gmail.com" type="cite">Thanks
Parminder. I appreciate your taking the time to work on this.
<br>
<br>
Please do take over the text for Q1.
<br>
<br>
I went through the previous IGC statements, and included them where I
thought appropriate. In fact, that is where most of this text is from.
However, if there is any other statement we can add, please do suggest
it, Parminder, or anyone else.
<br>
<br>
Best, Ginger
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>