[bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

[Anja Kovacs]

The way I understood it, the unanimity at the Best Bits meeting was for a
permanent IGF that would be reformed and strengthened. Simple permanence
seemed considerably more controversial - or did I misunderstand that?

A statement across stakeholder groups saying the former could be very
powerful, I agree. Jeanette, can you maybe clarify whether this is what is
intended, or whether that statement would simply advocare for permanence
instead?

Thanks,
Anja
On Sep 1, 2014 12:54 PM, "Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal" <
jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/b4c8dbed/attachment.htm>