<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Pranesh, I think you are voicing concerns that we have heard from
both govt and business. Frankly, we are asking for a ten year
stable mandate, not "permanence" to enable long range projects and
investment. WE do not want to go back begging for a renewal in five
years. We are unlikely to be able to establish a permanent body at
the UN, but we can do a lot to stabilize and strengthen the IGF
using this approach.<br>
Thanks<br>
Stephanie Perrin<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-09-03, 8:21, Pranesh Prakash
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:540707E3.5060408@cis-india.org" type="cite">Jeremy
Malcolm <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jmalcolm@eff.org"><jmalcolm@eff.org></a> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Support seemed almost unanimous for
sending a statement on the permanent mandate of the IGF
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that
unanimity. Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a
permanent body.
<br>
<br>
The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we
should push for accountability of the IGF. Making it permanent
isn't really going to help accountability of the IGF (just as
having the IANA contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more
accountable so far, though the analogy is not perfect). I would
support making the evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's
term) more participative and transparent and, yes, more
"multistakeholder".
<br>
<br>
I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its
mandate before we call for it to be made permanent. For instance:
<br>
<br>
* What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of
the stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the
availability and affordability of the Internet in the developing
world?
<br>
* Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising
from the use and misuse of the Internet?
<br>
* Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any
relevant bodies? If so, which issues and which bodies?
<br>
* Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under
their purview? If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs
benefited from this interfacing?
<br>
<br>
I believe that stability of the IGF is very important. However, I
think for stability to be achieved it is far more important to
strengthen the IGF processes, making it more important, getting it
(and people who wish to participate in it) greater funding, etc.,
than to make the IGF permanent. I believe these (especially
having a 5/10-year mandate and finances for the IGF secretariat)
would do a great deal more to bringing stability to the IGF than
making it permanent would.
<br>
<br>
Apologies for sounding an off-note.
<br>
<br>
Regards,
<br>
Pranesh
<br>
<br>
<br>
Jeanette Hofmann <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jeanette@wzb.eu"><jeanette@wzb.eu></a> [2014-09-001 10:33:30
+0200]:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi all,
<br>
<br>
at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB
statement that
<br>
would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of
renewing
<br>
its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
<br>
This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB
meeting.
<br>
<br>
Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
<br>
stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might
be able
<br>
to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the
technical
<br>
community and the private sector. (Individual governments
support such a
<br>
statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the
few days
<br>
available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make
this an
<br>
all inclusive statement.)
<br>
<br>
Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF
is only
<br>
an idea that needs further exploration within the respective
groups. So,
<br>
with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for
your
<br>
opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would
find
<br>
support in civil society.
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<br>
P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this
email
<br>
does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to
forward it?
<br>
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
<br>
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a>.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>