[bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent

Wed Sep 3 16:31:04 EDT 2014

Good evening 

I think (but am often wrong) we are at one of those pivotal moments; the
strength of the IGF is the diverse bodies it throws together.  A call for an
open-ended mandate for IGF is not guaranteed to find traction at the UNGA
but we would kick ourselves had we not tried.

Best

Nigel 

From:  Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To:  Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
Date:  Wednesday, September 3, 2014 11:15 PM
To:  "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Anja
Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Cc:  Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, George  Sadowsky
<george.sadowsky at gmail.com>, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>,
Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>, Best Bits <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject:  Re: [bestbits] [governance] Call for making the IGF permanent

I think this is helpful, and I am sorry that I missed the BestBits meeting
and all the discussion.  My understanding (and I cc Jeanette who was there
and who was taking on the task for this letter, was that discussion of
evolution and strengthening was to go in the other letter....because it was
harder to get agreement on that.  WE are getting countries to sign on to
extension of the mandate, which is quite difficult.  We cannot start
throwing in qualitative material that requires negotiation.
Is this not why we have three letter going?
Thanks 
Stephanie
On 2014-09-03, 13:43, Anja Kovacs wrote:
> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
> meeting. 
> 
> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a permanent
> or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or long-term body
> while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the language that the Best
> Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the cross-stakeholder statement
> unfortunately does not). Transparency and accountability for me are an
> integral part of what needs to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be
> spelled out. I have made a suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB
> statement is being drafted.
> 
> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to the
> IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation has now
> spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC should have
> the correct background information as well.
> 
> Thanks and best,
> Anja 
> 
> 
> On 3 September 2014 22:27, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>> My cent:
>> 
>> Split the difference.
>> 
>> Everyone agrees/calls for a ten year planning horizon for UN participation in
>> IGF;
>> 
>> coupled with a call for greater multistakeholder participation in the -annual
>> - review process for IGF accountability and transparency reasons.
>> 
>> Everyone's a winner.
>> 
>> Lee
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky
>> <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 3, 2014 12:08 PM
>> To: Civil IGC Society Internet Governance Caucus -; Milton L Mueller
>> Cc: Pranesh Prakash; Jeanette Hofmann; Best Bits
>> Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent
>> 
>> I agree with Prakesh also.
>> 
>> George
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> >
>>> >
>>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 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".
>>> >
>>> > Agree with Pranash
>>> > --MM
>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> >     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>> >
>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> >     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> >     http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>> >
>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Anja Kovacs
> The Internet Democracy Project
> 
> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
> www.internetdemocracy.in <http://www.internetdemocracy.in/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/1b0e6187/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5027 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140903/1b0e6187/attachment.bin>