[bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

Wed Sep 3 12:35:26 EDT 2014

+1. From most sessions I followed at IGF holding in Istanbul, when
questions relating learning those success stories get asked, the overall
response goes in the line of "....there are no  specific references but we
are certain there are achievement"
I for one agree that the IGF may have achieved quite a lot and one of such
is the open avenue for participation which it has created. However, what I
think may have been missed is the proper follow-up on deliberations beyond
a particular IGF. Building a database of those follow-up outcomes/status at
national, regional and global level would have helped anyone appreciate the
situation.
While more prolonged years may be in order to improve on focus and help in
setting longer time milestone based goals. There wouldn't be any difference
if the IGF does not review it present state with the goal of making drastic
change to it's process towards becoming more action oriented. The
participation layer has been achieved to some extent, the public impact
aspect is what I hope next IGF term would focus on more.

Cheers!

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 3 Sep 2014 15:22, "Pranesh Prakash" <pranesh at cis-india.org> wrote:

> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
>
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the permanent
>> mandate of the IGF
>>
>
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity.
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should push
> for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really going to
> help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA contract be
> renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, though the analogy
> is not perfect).  I would support making the evaluation process (for
> renewal of the IGF's term) more participative and transparent and, yes,
> more "multistakeholder".
>
> I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its mandate
> before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:
>
>   * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the
> stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>   * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from the
> use and misuse of the Internet?
>   * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant
> bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>   * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their
> purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this
> interfacing?
>
> I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I think
> for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the IGF
> processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish to
> participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF permanent.
> I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and finances for the
> IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing stability to the
> IGF than making it permanent would.
>
> Apologies for sounding an off-note.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing
>> its mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able
>> to draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical
>> community and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a
>> statement too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days
>> available to coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an
>> all inclusive statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> T: +91 80 40926283 | W: http://cis-india.org
> -------------------
> Access to Knowledge Fellow, Information Society Project, Yale Law School
> M: +1 520 314 7147 | W: http://yaleisp.org
> PGP ID: 0x1D5C5F07 | Twitter: https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140903/ba2de7be/attachment.htm>