[bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi Anja,

when I suggested yesterday that we should ask for the IGF to become 
permanent I referred to the specific discussion we had about the number 
of years.

However, I don't see any problems with asking for also strengthening the 
IGF. We have by now several more or less consensual ms documents that 
support such a position, not least the NetMundial statement.

jeanette

Am 01.09.14 12:08, schrieb 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
> <mailto: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
>>>     <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 <https://eff.org/>
>>>     jmalcolm at eff.org <mailto:jmalcolm at eff.org>
>>>
>>>     Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 <tel:415.436.9333%20ext%20161>
>>>
>>>     :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>           bestbits at lists.bestbits.net  <mailto: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  <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>     + 44 771 247 2987  <tel:%2B%2044%20771%20247%202987>
>>     ____________________________________________________________
>>     You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>