[governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate

[Fouad Bajwa]

This also sets in the space to be utilized by the Developing Countries
instead of a single side intervention by the Developed. I also agree
that a more powerful representation participates at IGF but again the
minority with the right mix of people from all three multistakeholder
partners creates the right power to represent a country. Regional
level IG groups should also be identified so that country level
participation can be a real reality.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM, jlfullsack <jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Dear Parminder and all
>
> I see a (highly important and urgent) issue to be added between (2) and (3)
> : IG and Developinng Countries.
>
> So far we -the grass-root orgs, either from these countries or from
> industrialised ones working with them- missed this issue to be given its
> right place during the IGF's debates. In my opinion there are two main
> themes related to this issue :
> (1) The actual inclusion of DCs (and not only some representatives of a
> minority of these countries participating to the IGF) in the discussions on
> IG, i.e. in the whole IGF process ;
> (2) Taking in account the spatial extension of the critical Internet
> resources, first of all the Internet backbone network with its IGX and IXP,
> in order to provide the  affordability to Internet access and services for
> these countries.
>
> Respecting that, the third point you raise should also encompass the
> financing of both these themes.
>
> All the best
> Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
> ---- Original Message -----
>
> From: Parminder
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 7:20 AM
> Subject: [governance] IGF consultations - extending IGF's mandate
> Dear All
>
> The Feb open consultations of the IGF have a specific purpose of getting
> views on the issue of extending the IGF's mandate. This issue will be
> considered by CSTD (commission of science and technology) and later UN's
> ECOSOC in 2010. The WSIS (world summit on the information society) mandated
> that the decision on the issue will be taken in 'consultation with IGF
> participants'. It is the first time that open consultations will be for 2
> days, and the reason for this is that oneday will be exclusively devoted to
> considering this particular issue.
>
> Now, it is not entirely clear if 'IGF participants' are only those who
> gather for the annual IGF, or the open consultations also in some form
> comprises of IGF participants. In any case, the open consultations in Geneva
> are supposed to give MAG its directions, and since MAG takes all process
> decisions, inputting into the forthcoming consultations can have important
> bearing on the process that will be followed in terms of what may constitute
> 'consultations with forum participants' for deciding on continuation of the
> IGF. However, I am of the opinion that we should also put in our substantive
> comments on the continuation of the IGF right away.
>
> Just to kickstart the discussion, my view is that;
>
> (1) First of all we should clearly, and unambiguously, state that we will
> that IGF has a crucial and unparalleled role in the area of IG, specifically
> global public policy making in this area. For this reason, not only the IGF
> should be continued beyond 2010, but it should be suitably strengthened.
>
> (2) We should also assert that there are two clear, and relatively distinct,
> mandates of the IGF -  first, regarding public policy functions, as a forum
> for multistakeholder policy dialogue, and second, regarding capacity
> building. Both aspects of the IGF's role needs to be strengthened.
> Especially, one role (for instance, capacity building) should not be
> promoted to the exclusion of the other (policy related role). If the IGF is
> assessed not to be sufficiently contributing to its one or the other
> principal roles, adequate measures should be considered to improve its
> effectivenesses vis-a-vis that role.
>
> (3) The IGF should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be
> able to carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public
> interest.
>
> Also is enclosed the contribution IGC made late last year to the synthesis
> paper on this subject.
>
> parminder
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
>



-- 

Regards.
--------------------------
Fouad Bajwa
@skBajwa
Answering all your technology questions
http://www.askbajwa.com
http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance