[bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

Mon Sep 1 05:54:18 EDT 2014

Hi all,

Could it be possible to have a draft before sending +1 around? I think Jeremy's comment is rather critical:
"but I'm not sure whether people realized they would be supporting a broader statement covering other points"

Having a statement saying that "people at BB support the idea of renewing the IGF mandate" would be a statement of poor impact, showing no real willingness to go beyond what has lead the current IGF in some sort of dead-end, both politically and intellectually. 

It might not be that difficult to create unanimity (and not just consensus of XX's type or YY's type) on some of IGF challenges, but that would definitely help to work with clarity from the very beginning.

Looking forward.

JC

Le 1 sept. 2014 à 11:36, Matthew Shears a écrit :

> 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> 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/20140901/1826264f/attachment.htm>