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

Barry Shein bzs at world.std.com
Thu Sep 4 01:00:15 EDT 2014

Whether I agree with your premise or not vis a vis permanence you
raise good questions Pranesh Prakash.

From: Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>
>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.=20
>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=20
>push for accountability of the IGF.  Making it permanent isn't really=20
>going to help accountability of the IGF (just as having the IANA=20
>contract be renewable has helped keep ICANN more accountable so far,=20
>though the analogy is not perfect).  I would support making the=20
>evaluation process (for renewal of the IGF's term) more participative=20
>and transparent and, yes, more "multistakeholder".
>I would love to see analysis of how well the IGF has fulfilled its=20
>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=20
>stakeholders about ways and means of accelerating the availability and=20
>affordability of the Internet in the developing world?
>   * Has the IGF helped find any solutions to the issues arising from=20
>the use and misuse of the Internet?
>   * Have any issues ever been brought to the attention of any relevant=20
>bodies?  If so, which issues and which bodies?
>   * Has the IGF interfaced with appropriate IGOs on matters under their=20
>purview?  If so, which ones, and how have those IGOs benefited from this=20
>I believe that stability of the IGF is very important.  However, I think=20
>for stability to be achieved it is far more important to strengthen the=20
>IGF processes, making it more important, getting it (and people who wish=20
>to participate in it) greater funding, etc., than to make the IGF=20
>permanent.  I believe these (especially having a 5/10-year mandate and=20
>finances for the IGF secretariat) would do a great deal more to bringing=20
>stability to the IGF than making it permanent would.
>Apologies for sounding an off-note.

        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*

-------------- 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