[governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum

[carlos a. afonso]

One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada (developed
country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any new
mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process of
the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it.

Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. What
do they want? A world Internet university? Would they help to fund it?
Maybe this is a good idea, but this is not what we are talking about,
nor what the WGIG proposed, nor what most other forum proposals are
pointing to.

--c.a.

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> proposal presented this morning in subcom A:
>
> The Forum should be focussed on capacity building and development. 
This Forum:
> 1.    should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and
non-binding process to facilitate capacity building through the exchange
of information and best practices, to identify issues and make known its
findings, and to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement;
> 2.    should actively involve all stakeholders on an equal footing,
and benefit from their expertise and from that of experts engaged in
Internet governance, including those of the academic and scientific
communities;
> 3.    should not replace existing arrangements, institutions or
organizations, but involve them and take advantage of their expertise;
> 4.    should not be involved in the day-to-day or technical operations
of the Internet;
> 5.    should contribute, through its discussions, to fostering the
security, stability and robustness of the Internet;
> 6.    should encourage enabling environments that will promote further
diffusion and development of the Internet;
> 7.    should make full use of the tools of the information society to
conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for
conferences and face-to-face meetings, and to create on-line resources
of lasting value; and
> 8.    should be periodically reviewed to determine the need for its
continuation, recognizing the rapid development of technology and
institutions, but notionally should sunset after five years, pending the
conclusions of ongoing review.
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance