[governance] Re: IGC questionnaire response to date: complete

[Jeanette Hofmann]

Hi, I agree with Bill re question 2.
Moreover, I don't suppor the following paragraph since my reading 
results in a multiple possible interpretations and not just the one 
outlined below:

A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet
 >> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a
 >> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of
 >> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.

I also think that the text is too long. Here are a few parts of the text 
I think we could delete without losing too much:

** 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.**

**The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all
participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted
above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it
requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of
travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those
not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made
some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries,
ut such funding achieves a limited objective.**
 >>
**The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to
the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and
individual participants) would be several times that of the actual
outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected
in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total
visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum,
which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding
for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would
amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the
quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be
significantly improved.
 >>
With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that
the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from
business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international
organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel
grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers),
full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with
special attention to participants from unrepresented categories
(unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant
segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there
is an individual need).

Last point: Like Ginger, I am supposted to unconditional funding.

jeanette



William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Jul 14, 2009, at 1:37 PM, Ginger Paque wrote:
>>
>> I believe I took every suggestion into account.
> 
> The right step a), but shouldn't we do a step b) and try and winnow it 
> down?  It's currently eight pages, and some of the responses go into a 
> good deal of detail on points advocated by individual drafters that 
> haven't elicited much group discussion.
> 
>>
>> Please do let us know your thoughts on this. I think we are reaching 
>> consensus on a final draft. If this is not true, please let me know.
> 
> We need to do a consensus call on a final text to judge that, no?
> 
> Unfortunately I'm rushing today and can't help word smith, but there's a 
> number of bits of awkward phraseology (starting with the first sentence) 
> and a need for copyediting.  That aside, just few quick observations:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. To what extent has the IGF addressed the mandate set out for it in 
>> the Tunis
>>
>> Agenda?
>>
>> The IGF's mandate stipulated by the Tunis Agenda (TA) is specifically 
>> set in its para 72, while the imperatives that led to its creation are 
>> contained in preceding paras of the TA dealing with Internet 
>> governance, and specifically about public policy-making in this area.
>>
>> In terms of its principal mandate, the IGF seems largely to be on its 
>> way to becoming a unique global forum for multistakeholder dialogue on 
>> IG. However it is important, for this purpose, to keep up evolutionary 
>> innovations that each successive IGF meeting has tried out. To keep up 
>> the interest and engagement of stakeholders it is important that the 
>> IGF take up the most pressing global IG issues and seek a policy 
>> dialogue on them, with the objective of such a dialogue helping 
>> processes of real policy-making in these areas. Overall, IGF's success 
>> will be judged from how much it managed to influence these real 
>> policy-making processes. If this is taken as the central criterion of 
>> success, one can say that IGF is moving towards fulfilling its 
>> mandate, but not quite yet there. It needs to continue to pursue 
>> structural evolutions that (1) enable 'effective and purposeful policy 
>> dialogue' on 'issues that require most urgent resolution' and (2) 
>> strengthen links with institutions and processes of real policy making.
>>
>> In this connection IGF is still to achieve any clear success in the 
>> area of 'facilitating discourse between bodies dealing with different 
>> cross-cutting international public policies regarding the Internet' 
>> (section 72 b) and 'interfacing with appropriate inter-governmental 
>> organisations and other institutions on matters under their purview' 
>> (72 c).
>>
>> IGF has also not been able to make any progress towards fulfilling its 
>> mandate under section 72 e of 'advising all stakeholders in proposing 
>> ways and means to accelerate the availability and affordability of the 
>> Internet in the developing world', and section 72 g of 'identifying 
>> emerging issues, ... and, where appropriate, making recommendations'.
>>
>> It must however be said that IGF has had considerable success in at 
>> least three areas
>>
>> 1.      Getting stakeholders with very different worldviews to begin 
>> talking with each other, and at least start to see the others point of 
>> view if not accept it. This is a very important initial step because 
>> it is widely recognized that IG requires new and different governance 
>> and policy models than exclusively statist ones.
>>
>> 2.      Building the capacity on a range of IG issues among many newer 
>> participants, especially from developing countries with 
>> under-developed institutional and expertise systems in IG arena.
>>
>> 3.      Triggering regional and national initiatives for 
>> multi-stakeholder dialogue on IG, and forming loops of possible 
>> interactively between the global IGF and these national and regional 
>> initiatives (IGF-4 is trying this innovation in a relatively formal way).
> 
> I'd say inspiring
>>
>>
>> [corrected the following, taking out “all talk, as requested by 
>> Parminder, put back the paras inadvertently left out]
>> **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. 
>> 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.**
>>
>>
>> 2. To what extent has the IGF embodied the WSIS principles?
>>
>> The WSIS principles hold that Internet governance processes “should be 
>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of 
>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international 
>> organizations.” **As per WSIS principles IG “should ensure an 
>> equitable distribution of resources, facilitate access for all and 
>> ensure a stable and secure functioning of the Internet, taking into 
>> account multilingualism”.** Governments invoked these principles 
>> throughout the WSIS process, and in the Tunis Agenda mandated the IGF 
>> to, “promote and assess, on an ongoing basis, the embodiment of WSIS 
>> principles in Internet Governance processes.” Nevertheless, the IGF 
>> has not held any follow-up discussion on how to pursue this key 
>> element of its mandate. The Internet Governance Caucus has 
>> consistently advocated programmatic activity in this arena, and hence 
>> welcomes the Swiss government’s statement that implementation of the 
>> WSIS principles should be added as a cross-cutting issue at the core 
>> of all IGF discussions.
> 
> second line needs an edit, e.g. they also state that iG should...
>>
>>
>> We suggest that a process for the ongoing assessment and promotion of 
>> those principles within IG processes be established, per the Tunis 
>> Mandate. To that end we support the APC/COE/UNECE initiative "Towards 
>> a code of good practice on public participation in Internet governance 
>> - Building on the principles of WSIS and the Aarhus Convention" as a 
>> building block for such an effort.
>>
>>
>> A reading of the WSIS principles shows a clear emphasis on rights. Yet 
>> the IGF has side-tracked efforts to give rights and principles a 
>> significant emphasis in the meeting agenda, allowing a minority of 
>> voices to over-ride what is clearly a central obligation of the IGF.
>>
>> The concept of "rights" should continue to stress the importance of 
>> openness and universal access. This framework must continue to 
>> emphasize the importance of access to knowledge and development in 
>> Internet governance, while adding to it the basic right of individuals 
>> to access the content and applications of their choice. This is in 
>> keeping with current debates regarding an “open Internet”, and 
>> relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions.
>>
>> The inclusion of "rights and principles" allows for wide discussion of 
>> the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each 
>> other. It allows for open examination of the principles that should 
>> govern the Internet, particularly in its commercial facets.
> 
> I remain of the view that this bit on rights would be better positioned 
> as a stand alone issue in section 7.  On the one hand, that the 
> principles are intrinsically all about rights is a contention of some, 
> not a globally shared interpretation of all.  One of course could make 
> the argument that there's a right to information that equates to 
> transparency, a right to participation, a right to names in one's 
> language, etc...but this hasn't been debated and agreed in IGF or 
> elsewhere.  Insisting that all the WSIS principles must be seen as a 
> matter of rights could scare off some parties before the fact and make 
> it hard to persuade them to engage seriously on the issues.  And on the 
> other hand, by conflating the two the rights agenda seemingly becomes 
> all about the WSIS principles rather than a broader approach to the 
> range of IG issues.  I wouldn't have thought that's what rights 
> advocates want.
> 
> Anyway, Parminder and I have both expressed views on this, it'd be good 
> to hear from others too.
>>
>>
>> 3. What has the impact of the IGF been in direct or indirect terms? 
>> Has it impacted you or your stakeholder group/institution/government? 
>> Has it acted as a catalyst for change?
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus recognizes an improvement in the level 
>> of discussion between stakeholders since the WSIS process. It is 
>> observed that there is greater collaboration during the IGF phase than 
>> during WSIS, and less confrontation. **Due to the request by the IGF 
>> Secretariat to merge proposals, there are workshops and panels that 
>> include business, government, academia and civil society working 
>> together and exchanging ideas on various levels.** [Removed reference 
>> to 2009 as per Parminder]
>>
>>
>> The impact of the IGF is seen on a deeper level. If the question is 
>> posed differently in order to examine the impact of the IGF on 
>> participants, it can be seen that the participants as individuals or 
>> organizations have gained from the flow of knowledge at the IGF which 
>> in turn gets shared with and influences the respective stakeholder 
>> groups. One might also ask different questions such as "Has your 
>> involvement in IGF increased your knowledge of internet governance? 
>> "Has your involvement led to meaningful contact with other peers that 
>> has assisted in your work? and "Has your participation in the  
>> multi-stakeholder process changed or affected your perspective on any 
>> particular governance issues?" to understand additional impact of the 
>> IGF.
>>
>>
>> The Internet Governance Forum is also changing the way other 
>> international policy process and governments perceive civil society 
>> participation in the policy making process.
> 
> This seems a rather bald statement.  Are we assuming for it's changed it 
> for the better?  Think China and Saudi Arabia feel that way?  I'd 
> decenter CS and say its improving mutual understanding and perceptions 
> in all directions etc
> 
>> During the preparatory phase as well as during the first three IGFs, 
>> governments have had an opportunity to experience
> 
> It is fair to say not all have been overjoyed by this opportunity
> 
>> the mutlistakholder participatory process of the IGF and are becoming 
>> comfortable with the process of consultation. This 'roundtable' 
>> equality is largely an IGF achievement. The IGF process promotes trust 
>> in the functionality of the participatory governance process and this 
>> will have other widespread impact.
>>
>>
>> 4. How effective are IGF processes in addressing the tasks set out for 
>> it, including the functioning of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group 
>> (MAG), Secretariat and open consultations?
>>
>> ****[Parminder]
>>
>> ****[Ian]
>>
>> *Membership of the MAG*
>>
>> • The MAG should be large enough so that its members bring the 
>> required balance of stakeholder interests, diversity and experience, 
>> but not so large as to cause the group to be ineffective. In the 
>> present circumstances, we think that 40 is a good number for MAG 
>> members. One third of MAG members should be rotated every year.
> 
> Do we need to say this, that's the deal now
> 
>> ****[Ian]
>> • Civil society has been under represented in the multi-stakeholder 
>> advisory groups appointed in 2006 and 2007, this anomaly should be 
>> corrected in this round of rotation and a fair balance of members 
>> among all stakeholders assured. Fair civil society representation is 
>> necessary to ensure legitimacy for this new experiment in global 
>> governance.
>> • We agree that the organizations having an important role in Internet 
>> administration and the development of Internet-related technical 
>> standards should
>> continue to be represented in the MAG. However, their representation 
>> should not be at the expense of civil society participation.
>> ****[Ian]
>> • When recommending members of the MAG all stakeholders should ensure 
>> diversity in terms of gender, geography, and, where applicable, 
>> special interest groups.
>>
>> *Role and Structure of the MAG*
>>
>> With the experience of **four [Parminder]** years of the IGF, it is 
>> also the right time to revisit the role and the structure of the MAG. 
>> To start with, it will be useful to list out the functions that MAG is 
>> expected to perform.
>>
>> • One function is of course to make all necessary arrangements for the 
>> annual IGF meetings. We must reviews MAG's experience with carrying 
>> out this function. What more needs to be done by MAG to further 
>> improve the effectiveness of the IGF? We are of the opinion that MAG 
>> must review its decision making processes to make them more effective. 
>> These are especially important if IGF is to evolve into something more 
>> than what it is today, to enable it to fulfil all aspects of its 
>> mandate.  **A MAG that is little more than a program committee will 
>> not effectively advance the cause of internet governance or fulfilment 
>> of the WSIS mandate.**
>>
>> • It will
> 
> would
> 
>> be very useful for the MAG to work through working groups (WGs). These 
>> WGs should prepare for each main session and the set of workshops 
>> connected to this main session. WGs can also be used for managing 
>> internal tasks of the MAG more effectively.
>>
>> • We also seek greater clarity at this point about whether the MAG has 
>> any substantive identity other than advising the UN Secretary General. 
>> For instance, to carry out some part of the mandate which requires 
>> 'interfacing', 'advising', identifying issues', 'giving 
>> recommendations' etc, MAG, in some form or the other, needs to be able 
>> to represent the IGF. It looks highly impractical that these tasks can 
>> cohere in the UN Secretary General.
> 
> I do not support this and would like to hear whether others do.
>>
>> • MAG should prepare an annual report for the IGF. This report should 
>> mention IGF activities and performance for the year against relevant 
>> parts of the Tunis Agenda which lays out its mandate, and also outline 
>> plans for the year ahead. We
>>
>> suggest that this report, once adopted by the Secretary General, would 
>> also satisfy the requirements of paragraph 75 of the Tunis Agenda and 
>> prepare for discussion about the desirability of continuing the Forum 
>> beyond 2010.
>>
>> • IGF should actively encourage regional and national level IGFs, 
>> which should be truly multi-stakeholder. A specific plan should be 
>> drawn out for this purpose, possibly using a MAG working group. Such a 
>> need is also expressed in the paragraph 80 of Tunis Agenda.
>>
>> *
>>
>> Funding of IGF, and Issues of Participation*
>>
>>
>>
>> The United Nations needs to recognise that the IGF is the outcome of a 
>> UN process and should ensure that it has the resources it needs to 
>> fulfill its mandate as defined at the Tunis Summit in 2005. We express 
>> our great respect and appreciation for the work of the IGF 
>> Secretariat. While severely under-funded it has still been responsible 
>> for many of the IGF's successes. The Secretariat should be provided 
>> with resources needed to perform its role effectively.
>>
>> In addition, a fund should be established to support the participation 
>> of people from developing and least developed countries in the IGF 
>> annual meetings and the IGF preparatory consultations.
>>
>> *Special Advisors and Chair*
>>
>> The need for Special Advisors, their role in the MAG, and criteria for 
>> their selection should be clarified. Considerations of diversity, as 
>> mentioned above in case of MAG members, must also be kept in mind for 
>> the selection of Special Advisors. The number of Special Advisors 
>> should be kept within a reasonable limit.
>> ****[Ian]
>>
>>
>> 5. Is it desirable to continue the IGF past its initial five-year 
>> mandate, and why/why not?
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus is of the view that the IGF should 
>> continue beyond its first mandated period of five years.
>>
>> 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 need to be strengthened.
> 
> this seems a very selective reading of the mandate.  I'd say something 
> like two key elements of the mandate are...
>>
>> 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 effectiveness vis-a-vis that role.
>>
>> It is important that IGF remains open to addressing all issues that 
>> are in the IG space, no matter how controversial. Very likely, the 
>> more controversial an issue, the more appropriate it may be to bring 
>> it to the IGF where inputs from a diverse range of stakeholders can be 
>> sought.
>>
>> Deliberations at the IGF can be used as inputs for global Internet 
>> policy making, which will help make policy-making processes more 
>> participative and democratic.
>>
>> We congratulate the IGF secretariat on doing exemplary work in the 
>> last few years, However for this success to be built on, the IGF 
>> should be assured stable and sufficient public funding to be able to 
>> carry its functions effectively, and impartially in global public 
>> interest. To this end we believe it is important that no other UN 
>> organization gets involved in the IGF's management.
> 
> Repetitious?
>>
>>
>> 6. If the continuation of the Forum is recommended, what improvements 
>> would you suggest in terms of its working methods, functioning and 
>> processes?
>>
>>
>> **We have suggested some improvements in our answers above. In
>>
>> addition, we submit:**[Ian]
>>
>>
>>
>> Since the value and effectiveness of the IGF are obvious, with 
>> near-unanimous response that it should continue,
> 
> Are we simply waving away the opposition of China, various ME 
> governments, etc?  Not sure that's a clever thing for CS to do.
> 
>> we believe that the review should focus on addressing the issue of 
>> more inclusive participation.   More importantly, the energy not 
>> needed in a review of the current process could be spent in the search 
>> for ways to foster more active inclusion of rarely heard and 
>> developing country voices through, but not limited to, remote 
>> participation remote, including transcription and archiving.
>>
>>
>>
>> And here, in keeping with WSIS principle 13:
>>
>>
>> “In building the Information Society, *we shall pay particular 
>> attention* to the special needs of marginalized and vulnerable groups 
>> of society, including migrants, internally displaced persons and 
>> refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and 
>> nomadic people.* *We shall also recognize the special needs of older 
>> persons and persons with disabilities.” We include **in 
>> particular**[Jeremy], Indigenous peoples worldwide, ****[Jeremy]rural 
>> people and particularly those who are the poorest of the poor and 
>> often landless or migrants, those concerned with promoting peer to 
>> peer and open access governance structures built on an electronic 
>> platform, those looking to alternative modes of Internet governance as 
>> ways of responding to specific localized opportunities and 
>> limitations, and those working as practitioners and activists in 
>> implementing the Internet as a primary resource in support of broad 
>> based economic and social development.
>>
>> This requires a willingness to consider the inherent limitations of 
>> structures and processes that may have seemed natural or inevitable in 
>> 2005, in the wake of a somewhat traditional intergovernmental summit. 
>> For example, it may not be most inclusive and appropriate for the 
>> "forum" of the Internet Governance Forum to be conceived as an 
>> isolated face-to-face meeting held in a far-flung city.  Rather, 
>> perhaps the IGF should take a leaf out of the book of other Internet 
>> governance institutions such as the IETF and ICANN, in which most work 
>> and engagement takes place between meetings in online and regional 
>> fora, and for which global face-to-face meetings are more of a 
>> capstone for the work done elsewhere.
> 
> I don't understand the interplay of these two paragraphs.  Are we saying 
> that if more meetings are held in different regions (still far flung, 
> depending on where you are), displaced persons and refugees, minorities 
> and nomadic people, etc. will come debate IPV6, core resources, etc?
>>
>>
>> Selection of the host country for any IGF meeting is a complex 
>> decision. The IGC considers that the location for meetings should more 
>> clearly support participation by individuals and organizations with 
>> few resources.
>> **Accessibility, airline competition and routing options, and 
>> city/country cost of hotels and food should be taken into 
>> consideration as well.**
> 
> Means meetings should be held in relatively cheap cities that are major 
> airline hubs?
> 
>> [Jeremy] Final meeting dates and sites should be announced 360 days in 
>> advance to allow for budgeting and
>> advanced planning, and to ensure that transport, food and lodging is 
>> competitive and convenient.
>>
>> Considering the relevance of IGF and its achievements during its term 
>> and the need to spread and improve the resulting information and 
>> policies, the IGF should support regional forums around the world, 
>> using its mission and brand to strengthen movements already existing 
>> in some regions and to help others to start.
>>
>> The regional forums - holding the stakeholder model, signature and the 
>> support of the IGF – are a powerful tool to foster the implementation, 
>> in a regional/ local level, of several suggestions raised during these 
>> years to address the Tunis agenda stipulation for "development of 
>> multi-stakeholder processes at the national, regional… level". This 
>> should be complemented by more formal support for Remote Hubs to the 
>> annual IGF meeting.
>>
>> Similarly, we must no longer avoid considering the need for new 
>> structures and processes for the IGF that would allow it to produce 
>> more tangible outputs through a process of reasoned deliberation.  In 
>> the past various such innovations have been considered - including 
>> speed dialogues, moderated debates, and roundtable discussions - but 
>> always the MAG has demurred from going through with these reforms due 
>> to the reticence of some stakeholder representatives.  Although it may 
>> be palatable to all - change never is - the IGC contends that the IGF 
>> as a whole will suffer in the long term it does not prove its value to 
>> the international community by adopting mechanisms for the production 
>> of non-binding statements on Internet public policy issues.
> 
> Over the years many IGC members have argued against this but are not 
> participating in this discussion now.  Are we going to go ahead and say 
> this on the "you snooze, you lose" principle?
> 
> I certainly do not support the proposition that the IGF can only prove 
> its value through recommendations.
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus calls upon the UN Member States to 
>> provide substantial funding for IGF programs and participation to be 
>> used to further enhance the quality of programs and to foster greater 
>> diversity of participation.^
>>
>> There are two aspects to be considered in this regard: a) Present IGF 
>> participants representing various stakeholder groups are highly 
>> qualified individuals with diverse accomplishments but it is also true 
>> that IGF participation needs to be further expanded to include more 
>> Civil Society participants known for their commitment and 
>> accomplishments outside the IGF arena on various Civil Society causes. 
>> And b) The present attendees of the IGF do not represent all 
>> participant segments and geographic regions,**as noted 
>> above.**[Jeremy] Funding possibilities need to be improved and it 
>> requires various efforts, but availability of various categories of 
>> travel grants for participants may help improve attendance by those 
>> not yet seen at the IGF for want of funds. The IGF already has made 
>> some funds available for representation from Less Developed Countries, 
>> but such funding achieves a limited objective.
>>
>> The true cost of the IGF (including all visible and invisible costs to 
>> the IGF Secretariat, participating Governments, organizations and 
>> individual participants) would be several times that of the actual 
>> outflow from the IGF Secretariat in organizing the IGF, as reflected 
>> in the IGF book of accounts. If an economist estimates the total 
>> visible and invisible costs of the IGF, it would be an enormous sum, 
>> which is already being spent each year. With an increment in funding 
>> for travel support to panel speaker and participants, which would 
>> amount to a small proportion of the true total cost of the IGF, the 
>> quality of panels and the diversity of participation could be 
>> significantly improved.
>>
>> With this rationale, the Internet Governance Caucus recommends that 
>> the IGF should consider budgetary allocations supported by grants from 
>> business, governments, well funded non-governmental and international 
>> organizations and the United Nations. The fund could extend travel 
>> grants to 200 lead participants (panel speakers, program organizers), 
>> full and partial fellowships to a greater number of participants with 
>> special attention to participants from unrepresented categories 
>> (unrepresented geographic regions and/or unrepresented participant 
>> segments and even to those from affluent, represented regions if there 
>> is an individual need).
> 
> 
> Addressed previously.  Would suggest all points on funding should be 
> grouped in one place, significantly streamlined, and more realistic.
>>
>>
>> 7. Do you have any other comments?
>>
>> The Internet Governance Caucus proposes that the IGF Secretariat 
>> introduce a mechanism to record and archive all sessions by text 
>> transcript and collated audio visual records as a searchable research 
>> resource, as also assign neutral personnel to prepare consensus/ 
>> stakeholder position reports on issues/sessions.
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>   Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
> ***********************************************************
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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