[governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review

[Ginger Paque]

Jeremy: So, lose those seven words...


Done. Here is the current Q1:


1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
the Tunis Agenda?

Paragraph 72 of the Tunis Agenda, (a), asks the IGF to: Discuss public 
policy issues related to key elements of Internet governance in order to 
foster the sustainability, robustness, security, stability and 
development of the Internet.

There can be no doubt that this discussion is beginning to take place. 
So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”. The 
participation, the increasing quantity and quality of workshops, even 
the controversies that arise, are proof that this discussion is taking 
place. The continued interest in workshops is indication that this 
process is still dynamically growing and needs to continue so that 
discussions may cover all aspects of the debate and include all actors, 
particularly areas such as rights, inclusion and others, which have not 
been adequately addressed.

However, there is more work to be done on addressing certain of the 
other paragraphs of the IGF's mandate that call for it to go beyond 
discussion into action - for example, in effectively interfacing with 
other international Internet governance institutions (para 72(b) and 
(c)), in assessing their compliance with the WSIS process criteria (para 
72(i)), and in formulating recommendations to them in appropriate cases 
(para 72(g)).

The Tunis agenda also calls for "development of multi-stakeholder 
processes at the national, regional… level" similar to the IGF. It is 
heartening to note that some such national and regional processes are 
already taking shape. IGF should further encourage such processes and 
seek to establish formal relationships with these initiatives. Since the 
fear of governmental domination is considerably higher at national 
levels, IGF should use global civil society groups and processes to 
guide appropriate multistakeholderisation of emerging national IGF 
spaces. IGC again offers its assistance to the IGF in this regard.

Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 12/07/2009, at 10:30 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>
>> Jeremy, with these changes is it acceptable to you?
>
> What I was objecting to was "precisely what it was designed to be", 
> because it implies the IGF was never required to be anything more than 
> "all talk". So, lose those seven words and I am happy. :-)
>
____________________________________________________________
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