[bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Shouldn't we add "within the framework of the UN"?

My sense was last night that this is consensual too.
jeanette

Am 01.09.14 11:53, schrieb Jeremy Malcolm:
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Agreed.  So far the text on IGF's permanent mandate on the Etherpad is
> very minimal and simply says "We call for the establishment of the IGF
> as a permanent multistakeholder forum with strengthened support."  There
> may be merit in keeping it this simple, so that it could be offered as
> the wording for the multi-stakeholder statement.  The longer it is, the
> more likely disagreement will keep in.  Yet, despite its simplicity, the
> message is still strong.
>
> --
> 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
>