<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>It surely does look to me that these folks talkin bout funding and continuing the IGF are not medical doctors or truck drivers or homemakers or social workers. Seems to me, based on how the talk that they are diplomats and politicians.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As I understand it diplomats and politicians are like most folks -- they have an agenda, they have wants and needs and they have something to spend. Now this place is filled with academics, intellectuals and activists. So I think that it should be easy to figure out what these diplomats and politicians want in exchange for the IGF having a say and a seat at the table. Here are just a few things that I think you could sell:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>1. A robust inclusive membership whose endorsement would mean something.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>2. Papers illuminating - same old - Publish or Perish - perhaps a periodical or magazine.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>3. An active uncensored forum where ideas could be floated to predetermine political viability. An open process for submission and review. Yet with deniability.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4. Publicity</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>these last two will bother some</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>5. Open source* access to/for lobbyists and advocates</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM>6. Online voting to best gauge popularity and public opinion without mandate -- also used for reverse marketing and promotion of the above.</EM></DIV>
<DIV><EM></EM> </DIV>
<DIV>I don't know but seems to me even Washington or Bejing or Tehran or Montevideo or New Delhi would like this resource.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--- On <B>Fri, 11/20/09, Adam Peake <I><ajp@glocom.ac.jp></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Adam Peake <ajp@glocom.ac.jp><BR>Subject: Re: [governance] Future of IGF<BR>To: governance@lists.cpsr.org<BR>Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 8:48 AM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>There was a problem with interpretation while the Chinese delegation<BR>made their statement. The missing sections are now online, and text<BR>relevant to Izumi's comments are:<BR><BR>"Fifthly, a Bureau should be set up with a balanced membership of<BR>various parties and geographical regions, and its term of reference<BR>and rules of procedures should be formulated by the United Nation.<BR><BR>Sixthly, on tenure of the future IGF, we deem it necessary to review<BR>the extension of the IGF every two or three years.<BR><BR>In the view of the Chinese delegation, the setting up of a mechanism<BR>for Enhanced Cooperation with a reformed IGF will effectively promote<BR>the global Internet governance process and facilitate the achievement<BR>of Millennium Development Goals.<BR><BR>Thank you, Mr. Chairman."<BR><BR>All transcripts are now online. There are links from the front page<BR>of main IGF website, and from within the main
session programme<BR><<A href="http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Programme.MainSessions.html" target=_blank>http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009/sharm_el_Sheikh/Programme.MainSessions.html</A>>.<BR>The programme should be useful, take a look.<BR><BR>Draft chairman's report online (linked from main IGF page) and there<BR>are summaries of each day available.<BR><BR>Adam<BR><BR><BR>On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:59 AM, Izumi AIZU <<A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=iza@anr.org" ymailto="mailto:iza@anr.org">iza@anr.org</A>> wrote:<BR>> Now that 4th IGF is over, we are entering into the consultation phase for the<BR>> future of IGF, right. I happened to meet with some Chinese government<BR>> officials here at Cairo airport lounge and asked them about their position<BR>> about the continuation of IGF. As some of you may noticed, the statement<BR>> they made at the stock-taking pleanry was not
clear.<BR>><BR>> They said China does not support the IGF to continue, and the translation<BR>> of the statement was not clear that time. So they have submitted their<BR>> written statement later.<BR>><BR>> ITU did suppor the continuation, but China pointed out that that is the<BR>> secretariat position, there has been no official resolution by the member<BR>> states of ITU.<BR>><BR>> Oh well... another round of negotiation!<BR>><BR>> izumi<BR>> ____________________________________________________________<BR>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR>> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR>> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org"
ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>><BR>> For all list information and functions, see:<BR>> <A href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR>><BR>____________________________________________________________<BR>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<BR> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR>To be removed from the list, send any message to:<BR> <A href="http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org" ymailto="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</A><BR><BR>For all list information and functions, see:<BR> <A
href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target=_blank>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>