[bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

[Stephanie Perrin]

I certainly am of the view that simply calling for permanancy is not 
enough, and figuring out what the next stage of the maturity model and 
what  it means has not achieved rough consensus (Adam spoke about this 
this morning in the session) so we will need to split off the stuff that 
does not have consensus and needs to be explored. Articulating the 
themes of that would be useful though and should not be dropped IMHO.
Stephanie
On 2014-09-01, 5:36, Matthew Shears wrote:
> I support Jeremy's point on two statements - particularly if the one 
> on a permanent mandate is multi-stakeholder.
>
> On 9/1/2014 12:00 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>> On Sep 1, 2014, at 11:38 AM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi - I agree with the idea of a joint statement making the IGF permanent
>>> However, I would point out that yesterday at the Best Bits meeting 
>>> we agreed to make a statement saying more than just that the IGF 
>>> should be made permanent - we also were to preparea a statement on 
>>> other issues and a smaller group had started notes on these during 
>>> the meeting on the meeting etherpad 
>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/NnbQgXIv8Y at lines 330-339
>>> These still need more work -  a small group volunteered to work on 
>>> developing these into a statement that would be sent to this list 
>>> for comment and a call for support (myself, Dixie, Jeremy, Carolina 
>>> - maybe one or two others?)
>>
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the 
>> permanent mandate of the IGF, but I'm not sure whether people 
>> realised they would be supporting a broader statement covering other 
>> points (such as "concern at the number of new processes", which seems 
>> contentious to me, although I personally agree with it).  Can we have 
>> two separate outputs?  ie. I think there would be value in issuing a 
>> consensus statement on the renewal of the IGF, and putting the other 
>> paragraphs into an optional sign-on statement if they are more 
>> contentious and might detract from the unanimity of the message about 
>> extension of the IGF.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140901/aba13d0b/attachment.htm>