[discuss] Draft statement on making IGF permanent

[manning bill]

permanent implies that no further evolution/change is needed/required/desired.  
Is the IGF truly the apex of Internet development?


/bill
Neca eos omnes.  Deus suos agnoscet.

On 2September2014Tuesday, at 7:48, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton at internet-ecosystem.org> wrote:

> +1. 
> 
> I would add that a permanent IGF is a good thing, but it still needs reviewing on a regular basis. I think we all know there are quite a few significant improvements that should be made, many of which are the object of very wide consensus, but funding amongst other issues prevents their implementation.
> 
> All organisations need something to keep them ’on track’ and to keep those who are in charge of them accountable. 
> 
> On 2 Sep 2014, at 10:15, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel at firsthand.net> wrote:
> 
>> What is the number one priority for IGF?  Permanence doesn't do it for me when the buy in across the UN and elsewhere is so patchy. There seem to me to be three key things that need accomplishing.
>> 
>> -  Stakeholder engagement including commitments to financial and human resources for at least three preferably five years. 
>> -  Establish processes to build multi stakeholder engagement to develop key objectives including at UN and other key communities
>> -  Stimulate dialogue and reportage including events, publications, research, and education. 
>> 
>> I'm not claiming to have captured it all but hopefully a step towards. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss