[discuss] [bestbits] Draft statement on making IGF permanent

Christian de Larrinaga cdel at firsthand.net
Tue Sep 2 15:21:49 UTC 2014

I will only add to my last comment that I don't understand the
diplomatic or institutional implications of calling for "permanent"
mandate rather than a "continuing or open-ended mandate".    

I expect the point behind this proposal is not to enshrine IGF as a
forever fixture on the world but to prolong and enhance the IGF at the
UN. That seems laudable.

From a purely semantic perspective I prefer the term "continuing" or
"open ended" to "permanent".  The formation of the IGF Support
Association it is timely to ask the UN to continue its mandate now. So I
thank those who have taken the initiative to write this.


Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Please find attached a new, greatly revised text of the draft
> statement on making the IGF permanent.  We have sought advice on
> various aspects of the document and made the required revisions. 
> Please send your comments, as we hope to proceed with a letter and
> formal approval process tomorrow.  The document is also loaded on the
> pad at  https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
> Kind regards,
> Stephanie Perrin and Jeannette Hofmann.
> On 2014-09-02, 2:34, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> (sorry, cross-posting still necessary since not everyone is on each
>> of these lists)
>> Thanks to those who commented, here is a quick update of comments
>> received so far:
>> 1. Substance: Ryn and otherers made the important point that projects
>> in the UN environment are by definition temporary. If we ask the
>> Generaly Assembly to make the IGF a permanent entity, such a request
>> could imply a change of status that we did not mean to ask for.
>> This does not necessarily mean we should drop the whole statement but
>> that we have to be careful about its language and that we need to get
>> advise from the diplomats @ IGF.
>> 2. Title: People find it awkward. Others say it should address the UN
>> General Assembly.
>> Again others want a subtitle that would frame it as a statement from
>> the IGF stakeholders (meaning: we practically produce outcomes even
>> if we cannot formally agree whether or not we want the IGF to produce
>> outcomes)
>> 3. Text: too long, should be shortened but also incude other aspects
>> such as those that Avri mentioned: funding, successes of the IGF
>> 4. Language: should be softer to comply with UN style
>> 5. End: too ubrupt, could be more passionate
>> 6. Operational: Deadline for comments should be Wednesday night, IGF
>> local time, so that we have enough time on Thursday to get support
>> for it.
>> Statement should be read in the closing session?
>> I am grateful for all suggestions on how to proceed from here. We are
>> inventing the drafting process while I am writing this.
>> jeanette
>> Am 02.09.14 07:00, schrieb Avri Doria:
>>> (removed cross posting)
>>> Hi,
>>> I agree that the letter makes a good case and is a good start.
>>> I think we need to add a few elements, while working on keeping the
>>> text
>>> relatively brief
>>> I think the letter needs to include some information about the
>>> development of a sustainable funding model and that this requires the
>>> ability to do longer range planning.  I have added some text to that
>>> end.
>>> I think it is also important to add a bit about the successes of the
>>> IGF, perhaps including some of the information that is being collected
>>> on the IGF's effect on the Internet ecosystem in its the first 9 years.
>>>   As the IGF has been collecting this material, perhaps some
>>> examples can
>>> be lifted from that effort/report.  I am not aware of the progress
>>> being
>>> made on that report and whether it is available at this point.
>>> Thanks to Stephanie and Jeanette for the start that was made.
>>> avri
>>> On 01-Sep-14 16:49, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>>>> This is a rasonable text. Probably it can be shorten a little bit.
>>>> I support it.
>>>> wolfgang
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>>>> Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jeanette
>>>> Hofmann
>>>> Gesendet: Mo 01.09.2014 16:46
>>>> An: discuss at 1net.org; Best Bits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> Betreff: [governance] Draft statement on making IGF permanent
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> Stephanie Perrin and I have drafted a statement that asks the UN
>>>> Secretary to consider renewing the mandate of the IGF on a
>>>> permanent basis.
>>>> About 90% of the text are quotes from UN documents referring to the
>>>> IGF
>>>> and from the NetMundial Statement.
>>>> Our draft is intended to reflect the views of all stakeholders and
>>>> perhaps get a broad endorsement at the end of the IGF.
>>>> Right now, it is just a draft. Changes are welcome.
>>>> We have set up a pad for editing:
>>>> https://etherpad.mozilla.org/LQO468JD1K
>>>> For convenience we also paste the text into this email below.
>>>> The goal is to complete the editing before the end of the IGF.
>>>> Stephanie and Jeanette
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list
>>> discuss at 1net.org
>>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Christian de Larrinaga
@ FirstHand
+44 7989 386778
cdel at firsthand.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140902/795dc09a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 599 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140902/795dc09a/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list