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

[Stephanie Perrin]

Pranesh, I think you are voicing concerns that we have heard from both 
govt and business.  Frankly, we are asking for a ten year stable 
mandate, not "permanence" to enable long range projects and investment.  
WE do not want to go back begging for a renewal in five years.  We are 
unlikely to be able to establish a permanent body at the UN, but we can 
do a lot to stabilize and strengthen the IGF using this approach.
Thanks
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-09-03, 8:21, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
> Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> [2014-09-01 12:00:42 +0300]:
>> Support seemed almost unanimous for sending a statement on the 
>> permanent mandate of the IGF
>
> I will have to be the one to provide that "almost" to that unanimity. 
> Speaking for myself, I do not support making the IGF a permanent body.
>
> The IGF has to be relevant and has to deliver results, and we should 
> push for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really 
> going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA 
> contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far, 
> though the analogy is not perfect).  I would support making the 
> evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative 
> and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>
> I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its 
> mandate before we call for it to be made permanent.  For instance:
>
>   * What advice has the IGF / the IGF process provided to any of the 
> stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and 
> affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>   * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from 
> the use and misuse of the Internet?
>   * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant 
> bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>   * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under 
> their purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited 
> from this interfacing?
>
> I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I 
> think for stability to be achieved it is far more important to 
> strengthen the IGF processes, making it more important, getting it 
> (and people who wish to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than 
> to make the IGF permanent.  I believe these (especially having a 
> 5/10-year mandate and finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a 
> great deal more to bringing stability to the IGF than making it 
> permanent would.
>
> Apologies for sounding an off-note.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
>
> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> [2014-09-001 10:33:30 +0200]:
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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/20140903/76bcd6ec/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:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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