[governance] IGC questionnaire Q1 for review

[Ginger Paque]

Sorry, Parminder, you are right. I mixed my drafts. I will check and 
re-send with your notes incorporated, ok? I really appreciate your help, 
discussion and patience.

Thanks, Ginger

Parminder wrote:
> 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
>>
____________________________________________________________
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