[governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

Mawaki Chango kichango at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 06:36:52 EDT 2014

Hi all:

Jeanette, your post has come through onto the IGC list as far as I can see.

To respond to the whole thread so far, I think a simple call for permanency
would be weak. Doesn't the NETmundial declaration already talk about
strengthening IGF? So at the very least, a multistakeholder call would have
to include permanent IGF with strengthened support. And unless this is
threat to maintaining cohesion across stakeholder groups which might be
willing to support such call, I'd go as far as introducing language along
the lines of what Anne Jellema proposes (expanded, stable, predictable
funding that is transparently accounted for.)

If there are stakeholders who are against the latter language, or if there
are broader points (as alluded to earlier) which are beyond the above then
we'll need to have two statements. But the minimum in my view, even for a
multistakeholder call, would have to be for a permanent IGF with
strengthened and sustainable support.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:

> Hi all,
> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
> statement.)
> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only an
> idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So, with
> this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your opinions to
> find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find support in civil
> society.
> jeanette
> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140901/d2e27bc8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:

For all other list information and functions, see:
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:

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

More information about the Governance mailing list