[governance] 2nd DRAFT for CSTD IGF Questionnaire

[Izumi AIZU]

Dear list,

Here follows and attached are the 2nd version of our draft answer to CSTD
IGF questionnaire.
Since the discussion only touched on Q1 and Q3, I put changes on these two
points below. Added sentences and words are highlighted by yellow.
A full version with hitory-on version in Word format is attached.

As the deadline is approaching, I will ask Jeremy to put it into the poll
shortly, but hope we can catch any immediate and strong comments and
requests before doing so.


1. What do you consider the most important achievements of the first five
IGF meetings?

IGF created the space for dialogue by all stakeholders in an open, inclusive
manner. This emergence
and development of the principle and practice of the multistakeholder model
is perhaps the biggest
contribution IGF has achieved so far. It helped many participants to
understand the issues of their
interest, as well as to understand how other actors understand, act and
accept their issues.
Emergence of Regional and National IGF with multistakeholder approach is
another achievements.

*Yet *We also note that there are frustrations expressed that IGF process *we
still have *has we still have not directly
produced seen real tangible outcomes directly out of IGF process.


3. Which, if any, new mechanisms would you propose to improve the impact of
the IGF discussions,
in particular as regards the interaction between the IGF and other
stakeholders? Please specify the
kind of mechanism (e.g. reporting, exchanges, recommendations, concrete
advice, etc.) and the
stakeholders (e.g. intergovernmental bodies, other fora dealing with
Internet Governance, etc.).

a) One mechanism we can suggest is to come up with some form of
recommendations where
all stakeholders have [rough] consensus. They It will not be binding, but
could still function as model, reference or common framework. Working
process towards achieving these rough consensus will create better and
deeper understandings amongst different stakeholders.

b) The Secretariat and MAG should be strongly encouraged to directly foster
discussion and
debate of difficult issues in main sessions, instead of avoiding them.

<snip>

9. Do you have any other comments? (You may find it useful to refer to the
Note by the Secretary-General on the continuation of the Internet Governance
Forum (document A/65/78 – E/2010/68) or to the contributions made in the
formal consultations held online and during the IGF meeting in Sharm El
Sheikh, Egypt in 2009 (
http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2009-igf-sharm-el-sheikh/review-process)).
IGF must focus exclusively on public policy and governance issues. It should
avoid providing
standard educational workshops where some experts explain how to implement
certain technologies
or how these technologies work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101117/fe3b8ff3/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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t