[governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review

[Parminder]

Ginger,

You had asked and I tried a draft of reply to question 1 too. You may 
want to look at it as well. (I sent an email earlier today)

As for the draft below I cant see how the sentence

'So much so that the forum has been described as “all talk”.'

can be seen as a positive description of the IGF. The phrase ' all talk' 
is never used in a positive sense as per my admittedly limited knowledge 
of the language.

also we need to comment on other subsections of para 72 detailing IGF's 
mandate , other than 72 (a) as well.

parminder

Ginger Paque wrote:
> I believe this is now adapted to resolve Jeremy and Ian's concerns:
>
> 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.
>
> 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, 
> including the IGF Remote Hubs. 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20090713/0ea8c4a5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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