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

Anja Kovacs anja at internetdemocracy.in
Wed Sep 3 14:09:37 EDT 2014

Hi Mawaki and all,

My responses below:

On 3 September 2014 23:31, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> I fully agree with Pranesh and Seun here.
> While supporting the current call for open-ended mandate (time-wise) for
> the IGF, I certainly didn't mean to imply that everything else shall remain
> the same, and maybe we should make that clear in the statement? Could
> someone come up with a sentence or two to include in the cross-stakeholder
> statement in the next hour or two?
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Anja Kovacs <anja at internetdemocracy.in>
> wrote:
>> Thanks, Lee. That was in fact also what was suggested at the Best Bits
>> meeting.
>> The unanimous support was not merely for establishing the IGF as a
>> permanent or long-term body, but for establishing it as a permanent or
>> long-term body while reforming and strengthening it, and that is the
>> language that the Best Bits draft statement also uses at the moment (the
>> cross-stakeholder statement unfortunately does not).
[Anja] Correction: I see that in the final version of the cross-stakeholder
group, which was circulated only a little while ago, there has been an
attempt to now address this as well.

Thanks for all your work on this, Jeanette and Stephanie.

> Transparency and accountability for me are an integral part of what needs
>> to be strengthened, and I'm happy for that to be spelled out. I have made a
>> suggestion to that effect on the pad where the BB statement is being
>> drafted.
> Anja, why wouldn't you make the same suggestion to the drafters of the
> cross-stakeholder statement?

[Anja] Because I had mentioned this on the BB list earlier, and my
assumption was that if it wasn't included in the draft, then this was
likely because other stakeholder groups did not agree. Glad to see that
that assumption was mistaken.

In any event, I think we should agree that we need to start a process
> addressing questions such as those raised by Pranesh and Seun for a
> reformed IGF in its second decade (the IGF 2.0, if you will) shortly after
> the Istanbul meeting in order to have other recommendations follow the
> extension one, to that effect.

[Anja] +1.


> Thanks and best,
> Mawaki
>> I wouldn't normally cross-post a message like this (on a BB statement) to
>> the IGC list, but I thought it is important that since this conversation
>> has now spread out over both lists, people who are only part of the IGC
>> should have the correct background information as well.
>> Thanks and best,
>> Anja

Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140903/f2948acc/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