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

[Seun Ojedeji]

+1

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Sep 2014 23:03, "Stephanie Perrin" <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:

>  thanks, I was going to propose everyone join an IGF accountability
> project, and we find funding for it.  I think government could be a good
> target for funds for that....or business.  Happy to pass the hat.  We do
> need it, but the IGF is at too immature a maturity level at the
> moment....needs a longer mandate and stable funding to get to the next level
> Cheers, Stephanie
> On 2014-09-03, 12:57, Lee W McKnight 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> <governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org> on behalf of George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com> <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> <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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20140904/8a3e1f0f/attachment.htm>